Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 6 January 9, 2013 

Part IV 

Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, et al. 

Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate; Final Rule 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 86 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0091] 

RIN 0579–AD24 

Traceability for Livestock Moving 

Interstate 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to establish minimum 

national official identification and 

documentation requirements for the 

traceability of livestock moving 

interstate. Under this rulemaking, 

unless specifically exempted, livestock 

belonging to species covered by the 

regulations that are moved interstate 

must be officially identified and 

accompanied by an interstate certificate 

of veterinary inspection or other 

documentation. These regulations 

specify approved forms of official 

identification for each species but allow 

the livestock covered under this 

rulemaking to be moved interstate with 

another form of identification, as agreed 

upon by animal health officials in the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

improve our ability to trace livestock in 

the event that disease is found. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Neil Hammerschmidt, Program 

Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851– 

3539. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

a. Need for the Regulatory Action 

Preventing and controlling animal 

disease is the cornerstone of protecting 

American animal agriculture. While 

ranchers and farmers work hard to 

protect their animals and their 

livelihoods, there is never a guarantee 

that their animals will be spared from 

disease. To support their efforts, the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) has promulgated 

regulations to prevent, control, and 

eradicate disease. Traceability does not 

prevent disease, but knowing where 

diseased and at-risk animals are, where 

they have been, and when, is 

indispensable in emergency response 

and in ongoing disease control and 

eradication programs. 

We have clear indications that higher 

levels of official identification enhance 

tracing capability. For example, through 

the National Scrapie Eradication 

Program, 92 percent of the cull breeding 

sheep are officially identified at 

slaughter, primarily using flock 

identification eartags. This level of 

official identification made it possible 

in fiscal year 2010 to achieve traceback 

from slaughter of scrapie-positive sheep 

to the flock of origin or birth as part of 

the scrapie surveillance program 96 

percent of the time, typically in a matter 

of minutes. Other diseases, particularly 

contagious ones, require that we trace to 

more than the birth premises, i.e., to 

other premises where the animal has 

been after leaving the birth premises but 

before going to slaughter, so the scrapie 

model is not a complete solution for 

such diseases. 

APHIS believes that we must improve 

our tracing capabilities now not only to 

address current concerns, including the 

increasing number of cases of bovine 

tuberculosis, but also to ensure that we 

are well prepared to respond to new or 

foreign animal diseases in the future. 

On August 11, 2011, we published in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 50082– 

50110, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0091) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations by 

establishing minimum national official 

identification and documentation 

requirements for the traceability of 

livestock moving interstate. Under the 

proposed regulations, unless 

specifically exempted, livestock 

belonging to species covered by the 

rulemaking that are moved interstate 

would have to be officially identified 

and accompanied by an interstate 

certificate of veterinary inspection 

(ICVI) or comparable appropriate 

documentation. The proposed rule 

specified approved forms of official 

identification for each species but 

allowed the livestock covered under the 

rulemaking to be moved interstate with 

another form of identification, as agreed 

upon by animal health officials in the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 

The purpose of the proposed rule was 

to improve our ability to trace livestock 

in the event that disease is found. 

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory 

Action 

Under the Animal Health Protection 

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

Secretary of Agriculture has the 

authority to issue orders and promulgate 

regulations to prevent the introduction 

into the United States and the 

dissemination within the United States 

of any pest or disease of livestock. 

APHIS’ regulations in 9 CFR subchapter 

B govern cooperative programs to 

control and eradicate communicable 

diseases of livestock. The regulations in 

9 CFR subchapter C establish 

requirements for the interstate 

movement of livestock to prevent the 

dissemination of diseases of livestock 

within the United States. 

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of 

the Regulatory Action 

a. New or Revised Provisions 

This section provides a brief summary 

of the more significant changes we are 

making to this final rule in response to 

comments on the August 2011 proposed 

rule. Both the comments and the 

changes will be discussed in greater 

detail later in this document. The 

changes are listed below in the order 

they are discussed later in this 

document. 

• We are extending the phase-out 

period for manufacturer-coded AINs 

from 12 months to 24 months to make 

the transition less burdensome for 

producers. 

• We are revising the definition of 

official eartag and adding a new 

definition of official eartag shield. These 

changes will allow the use of State or 

Tribal postal abbreviation or codes 

within the U.S. Route Shield in lieu of 

‘‘U.S.’’ 

• We are revising the language of the 

exemption from the traceability 

requirements for animals moved 

interstate to custom slaughter to 

indicate clearly that the exemption 

applies to all interstate movement to a 

custom slaughter facility. The proposed 

rule contained language that implied 

that the meat must be consumed by the 

person moving the animal to custom 

slaughter. This was not the intent of the 

proposed rule. A significant number of 

backyard poultry growers commented 

and expressed concerns about the 

official identification requirement for 

movement of poultry to a custom 

slaughter facility. 

• We are reducing the requirement for 

the maintenance of interstate movement 

records for poultry and swine from 5 

years to 2 because, as noted by 

numerous commenters representing 

those industries, poultry and swine 

have shorter lifespans than do the other 

livestock species covered by this 

rulemaking. The requirement will 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2041 

remain 5 years for cattle and bison, 

sheep and goats, cervids, and equines. 

• In addition to eartags, in this final 

rule, we are recognizing brands, when 

accompanied by an official brand 

inspection certificate as means of 

official identification for cattle when the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

are in agreement. We are making this 

change in response to the many 

comments we received on this issue 

advocating that we retain brands as a 

means of official identification for 

cattle. Additionally, we are allowing 

similar provisions for tattoos and breed 

registry certificates. 

• In response to many commenters 

from the cattle industry, we will make 

feeder cattle (cattle under 18 months of 

age) subject to our official identification 

requirements in a separate rulemaking 

rather than in this one. 

• We will continue to allow backtags 

to be used in lieu of official 

identification on direct-to-slaughter 

cattle rather than eventually requiring 

official identification, as we had 

originally proposed to do. We are 

stipulating, however, that for backtags to 

be used on such animals, the animals 

will have to be slaughtered within 3 

days of their movement to the slaughter 

plant. 

• We are no longer requiring that 

cattle and bison moved interstate to an 

approved tagging site be officially 

identified at the site prior to 

commingling with cattle or bison from 

other premises. Under this final rule, 

commingling can occur prior to official 

identification provided that other 

practices are used that will ensure that 

the identity of the animal’s consignor is 

accurately maintained until the animal 

is tagged with an official eartag. We are 

making this change in response to 

numerous comments expressing 

concerns that operations at approved 

tagging sites could be slowed during 

busy periods. 

• We are clarifying the circumstances 

under which multiple official 

identification methods, including 

official eartags, may be used on the 

same animal. 

• We are exempting poultry growers 

that are not participating in the National 

Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) and 

that receive chicks from a hatchery or 

redistributor from the official 

identification requirements, with the 

stipulation that the producers maintain 

certain records, e.g., of the supplier of 

the birds. Many backyard poultry 

growers noted that group/lot 

identification of these birds was not 

applicable and that individual 

identification of these chicks was 

impractical. 

• We are allowing the use of other 

interstate movement documentation, in 

lieu of an ICVI, as agreed to by the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes, 

for cattle and bison of all ages. The 

proposed rule only allowed such an 

exemption for cattle and bison under 18 

month of age. 

• We are providing additional 

exemptions from the ICVI requirement 

for equines moving interstate under 

certain conditions. 

b. New Part Number 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, the 

new traceability regulations were 

contained in a new 9 CFR part 90. In 

this final rule, we are placing them in 

a new part 86 instead. The discussion 

below of the comments and our 

responses to them will reflect this 

change in numbering. When citing 

specific changes we are making in this 

final rule to the regulatory text, we refer 

to part 86. 

III. Costs and Benefits 

While this rulemaking applies to 

cattle and bison, horses and other 

equine species, poultry, sheep and 

goats, swine, and captive cervids, the 

focus of this analysis is on expected 

economic effects for the beef and dairy 

cattle industries. These enterprises are 

likely to be most affected operationally 

by the rule. For the other species, 

APHIS will largely maintain and build 

on the identification requirements of 

existing disease program regulations. 

There are two main cost components 

for this rule: Using eartags to identify 

cattle and having ICVIs for cattle moved 

interstate. The combined annual costs of 

the rule for cattle operations of official 

identification and movement 

documentation will range between 

$14.5 million and $34.3 million, 

assuming official identification will be 

undertaken separately from other 

routine management practices; or 

between $10.9 million and $23.5 

million, assuming that tagging will be 

combined with other routine 

management practices that require 

working cattle through a chute. 

Direct benefits of improved 

traceability include the public and 

private cost savings expected to be 

gained under the rule. Case studies for 

bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, 

and BSE illustrate the inefficiencies 

currently often faced in tracing disease 

occurrences due to inadequate animal 

identification and the potential gains in 

terms of cost savings that may derive 

from the rule. 

The benefits of this rulemaking are 

expected to exceed the costs overall. 

IV. Discussion of Comments 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 90 days ending 

November 9, 2011. We reopened and 

extended the deadline for comments 

until December 9, 2011, in a document 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 7, 2011 (Docket No. APHIS– 

2009–0091, 76 FR 62313). We received 

1,618 comments by that date. They were 

from cattle and other livestock 

producers and producers’ associations, 

livestock marketers and marketing 

associations, representatives of State 

and Tribal governments, and 

individuals. They are discussed below 

by topic. 

Rationale for and Scope of the 

Rulemaking 

Some commenters viewed our 

proposed animal traceability regulations 

as a one-size-fits-all approach to animal 

disease management. It was suggested 

that a risk-based approach focusing on 

specific animal diseases would be more 

effective than an overarching animal 

traceability program. 

Traceability is a common 

epidemiological need, regardless of the 

disease. If APHIS relied only on the 

traceability provided by disease control 

and eradication programs, there would 

be a void when the programs were 

concluded. That, in fact, is the case 

today with our progress toward 

successful eradication of many diseases. 

For example, as we noted in the 

preamble to the August 2011 proposed 

rule, the success of our brucellosis 

eradication program, while certainly a 

positive development, has resulted in a 

steep decline in the number of cattle 

required to be officially identified. As a 

result of decreasing levels of official 

identification in cattle, the time 

required to conduct other disease 

investigations has been increasing. An 

improved traceability system would 

help address the risk of new, emerging, 

foreign, or reoccurring diseases. Our 

new approach to animal disease 

traceability provides a flexible solution 

that is endorsed by the animal health 

officials who conduct disease control 

programs. 

Other commenters offered criticisms 

of our approach from the opposite 

perspective. A commenter stated that to 

ensure adequate traceability, the rule 

should apply to all livestock sold 

commercially, and not just livestock 

moving interstate. The commenter 

further stated that covering all 

commercial livestock under our 

regulations can be justified under the 

commerce clause of the U.S. 

Constitution. A commenter representing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

a foreign government stated that our 

proposed traceability system was not 

sufficiently comprehensive in that it 

would cover only animals moving 

interstate, would exempt animals being 

slaughtered for personal consumption 

from the requirements, and would allow 

different States to have their own 

traceability systems. Another 

commenter emphasized the latter point, 

stating that an overarching national 

system would be more beneficial for 

traceability purposes than would 

allowing States to enact their own 

requirements. 

We are not making any changes to the 

final rule in response to these 

comments. Our statutory authority to 

regulate livestock movement derives 

from the Animal Health Protection Act 

(7 U.S.C. 8305), which authorizes the 

Secretary ‘‘to prohibit or restrict the 

movement in interstate commerce of 

any animal, article, or means of 

conveyance, if the Secretary determines 

that the prohibition or restriction is 

necessary to prevent the introduction of 

dissemination of any pest or disease of 

livestock.’’ Interstate commerce is 

defined in the Act as ‘‘trade, traffic, or 

commerce between a place in a State 

and a place in another State.’’ The 

question of when or where that trade or 

traffic begins is subject to interpretation, 

and it is possible that some intrastate 

livestock movements may be regulated 

under the authority of the Act. 

Regulating the intrastate movement of 

livestock, however, would be contrary 

to the Secretary’s vision, laid out on 

February 5, 2010, for the animal disease 

traceability system. The Secretary’s 

approach, which called for the 

establishment of minimum uniform 

national traceability standards, was 

nevertheless intended to be sufficiently 

flexible to allow State and Tribal animal 

health officials to implement, with the 

cooperation of industry, the traceability 

systems that worked best for them; it 

was not intended to be a top-down 

system under Federal control. 

Additionally, it was not the intent 

behind the proposed rule to provide for 

a full-scale farm-to-plate traceability 

system, which would be beyond the 

scope of our statutory authority. 

Regarding the comments on the need for 

greater standardization, as we have 

noted, the proposed rule did provide for 

a uniform set of minimum national 

standards for States and Tribes to 

follow. This rulemaking allows States 

and tribes to adapt their individual 

traceability systems to meet local needs, 

but those systems will need to comply 

with these traceability regulations and 

will need to satisfy the traceability 

performance standards that will be set 

forth in future rulemaking. 

Many commenters expressed concern 

about the possible impact on small 

producers of the proposed regulations, 

suggesting that the traceability 

requirements could be more 

burdensome to small entities than to 

large ones. It was recommended by 

some commenters that we exempt small 

producers. Specific recommendations 

included exempting producers with less 

than 300 or 500 mature livestock and 

producers who are sole proprietors of 

their operations. 

We note that the size of the herd or 

flock is not the only factor contributing 

to the risk of the spread of animal 

diseases. Much more important is the 

degree to which the animals are moved 

interstate and commingled with other 

animals. Herds with no movement 

across State lines are exempt from these 

traceability requirements, regardless of 

the size of the operation, though the 

States and Tribes may have their own 

requirements. Additionally, we do 

exempt certain interstate movements 

where the risk of disease spread is 

minimal or where tracing such animals 

is easily achieved without additional 

requirements, e.g., movement of 

livestock to a custom slaughter facility. 

A commenter recommended that we 

exempt registered heritage livestock 

from the proposed traceability 

requirements. The commenter stated 

that there already are adequate 

identification standards in place for 

such animals. 

We agree in part with this comment. 

Specifically, we do agree that the 

identification provided by purebred 

registries may be adequate for disease 

traceability of heritage livestock. 

Nothing in these regulations would 

preclude the use of means of 

identification commonly employed on 

such animals. Our definition of official 

identification device or method is broad 

enough to allow for the use of tattoos 

and identification methods acceptable 

to a breed association for registration 

purposes when accompanied by a breed 

registration certificate, provided that 

those methods are determined to be 

official by the receiving State or Tribal 

animal health authorities. We do not 

believe, however, that heritage livestock 

moving interstate should be 

categorically exempt from all Federal 

identification and movement 

documentation requirements. 

A commenter recommended that we 

exempt horses from the proposed 

traceability regulations and stated that 

interstate movements of equines should 

not have to be reported. According to 

the commenter, an adequate traceability 

and notification system, which includes 

brand inspections, certificates of 

veterinary inspection, and permits, 

already exists for equines, rendering 

additional Federal requirements 

unnecessary. 

We do not agree that horses or other 

equines should be categorically exempt 

from traceability requirements; 

however, we believe that most horse 

owners are already in compliance with 

these provisions and need take no 

further action. A considerable amount of 

time in the last few years has been 

related to equine diseases, e.g., 

contagious equine metritis, equine 

herpes virus, equine infectious anemia, 

and equine piroplasmosis. Additionally, 

we do not view our traceability 

requirements as excessively onerous for 

equine owners, since, under these 

regulations, methods of identification 

and movement documentation that are 

already employed in the equine 

industry, e.g., written descriptions, 

digital photographs, and electronic 

identification methods, and are 

approved by State and Tribal animal 

health officials will be recognized as 

official. 

It was recommended by commenters 

that APHIS recognize existing export 

verification programs as satisfying the 

requirements of the proposed rule and 

that livestock in such programs should 

not be subject to the animal traceability 

requirements. 

While APHIS does support the use of 

official animal identification methods 

for various programs, including age and 

source verification programs used for 

export purposes, not all systems that 

verify age, source, or management 

processes for marketing animal products 

are necessarily designed to address the 

needs of animal disease traceability. 

Official identification methods used in 

these programs now can be used on 

animals moving interstate under these 

regulations if those methods meet our 

requirements for officially identifying 

such animals. Options to ensure that 

export verification programs cover 

disease traceability requirements more 

uniformly in the future will be 

developed in collaboration between 

APHIS and the USDA’s Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS). States and 

Tribes currently have the flexibility 

under these traceability regulations to 

accept the identification and 

documentation such programs provide 

in lieu of official identification and 

ICVIs for animals moving into their 

jurisdictions. 

Our overall justification for the 

proposed regulations was questioned by 

some commenters. It was stated that we 

did not explain or document how the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2043 

proposed rule would correct problems 

that have occurred in previous traceback 

investigations. It was further stated that 

the lack of identification on individual 

animals was not the sole source of our 

problems in conducting tuberculosis 

traceback investigations in the past. 

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 

accompanying the proposed rule 

provided several actual scenarios where 

the lack of traceability resulted in 

significant costs to producers and the 

public in general. We agree that the lack 

of identification on individual animals 

is not the only issue related to 

tuberculosis traceback investigations, 

but it is an ongoing and significant 

issue. There is general consensus among 

animal health officials that insufficient 

traceability has helped to prevent the 

successful completion of the 

tuberculosis eradication program, which 

began in 1917. 

A commenter representing a Tribal 

Government, while generally supportive 

of the proposed rule, cautioned that the 

proposed regulations should not contain 

language diminishing or implying a 

waiver of Tribal sovereignty. Tribal 

lands have defined borders that cannot 

be bisected by State borders. 

We agree with this comment, but on 

further review, we were unable to 

identify any language in the proposed 

rule implying a waiver of Tribal 

sovereignty, nor did the commenter cite 

any specific problem areas. Therefore, 

we are not making any changes to the 

final rule in response to this comment. 

Definitions 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, 

definitions were contained in § 90.1; in 

this final rule, they are contained in 

§ 86.1. 

The August 2011 proposed rule 

included a new definition of animal 

identification number (AIN) that was 

similar to the one being used elsewhere 

in the regulations at the time, albeit 

with one important difference. The 

proposed definition stated that the AIN 

consists of 15 digits, with the first 3 

being the country code (840 for the 

United States), except that the alpha 

characters USA or the numeric code 

assigned to the manufacturer of the 

identification device by the 

International Committee on Animal 

Recording may be used as alternatives to 

the 840 prefix until 1 year after the 

effective date of the final rule for this 

proposal. Existing definitions of animal 

identification number (AIN) in the 

regulations contained the same 

formatting requirements but did not 

specify a sunset date for the use of AINs 

beginning with the characters USA or 

the manufacturer’s code. We proposed 

to phase out those two AIN formats in 

order to achieve greater standardization 

of this numbering system, while 

providing producers with adequate 

notice of the change to enable them to 

work through existing inventories of 

eartags. 

Some commenters suggested that 

phasing out AINs with manufacturers’ 

codes would economically harm many 

producers and that we should instead 

continue to recognize such AINs as 

official under certain circumstances. 

Specifically, it was suggested that 

manufacturer-coded AIN tags should be 

recognized as official if the cattle 

bearing them have been enrolled in a 

process verified program (PVP) or a 

Quality System Assessment (QSA) 

program recognized by the AMS; if 

producers provide listings of the AINs 

to their State or Tribal animal health 

official; or if a system were developed 

whereby private organizations or 

marketing entities, in cooperation with 

State and Tribal animal health officials, 

could coordinate the application, 

recording, and/or management of the 

manufacturer-coded AIN tags. 

APHIS does support the use of official 

identification devices for management 

and marketing purposes and is sensitive 

to the concerns about additional cost if 

such systems are not compatible with 

our traceability regulations. While the 

commenters did not specifically state 

what additional cost would result from 

the transition to 840 AINs, as provided 

for in the proposed rule, we have 

evaluated factors that could potentially 

increase costs. Low frequency radio 

frequency identification (RFID) AIN tags 

are based on ISO 11784 and 11785; thus, 

the manufacturing of tags in regards to 

technology would be unchanged. 

Likewise, electronic reading 

infrastructure currently in place would 

not need to be replaced. We 

acknowledge that retagging animals that 

already have been tagged with AIN tags 

using manufacturers’ codes would 

increase costs to producers. The phasing 

out of such tags over time was intended 

to allow producers to avoid the need to 

retag animals. AIN tags with 

manufacturers’ codes that are applied to 

animals before the 840 requirement 

becomes effective will be recognized as 

official for the remainder of the animal’s 

life. Cattle enrolled in PVP and QSA 

programs are primarily feeder cattle, 

and these animals will be exempt from 

official identification requirements 

under this rulemaking; therefore, the 

need for producers of such cattle to 

transition to 840 AINs and possibly 

incur additional costs is further 

minimized. Future official identification 

options for feeder cattle, including 

options used in PVP and QSA programs, 

can be evaluated prior to initiating 

rulemaking to subject feeder cattle to the 

official identification requirements. 

We do recognize that some producers 

may have larger inventories of 

manufacturer-coded tags that may not 

be used by the date previously proposed 

for the phase-out to be completed. To 

address the possible economic burden 

on these producers resulting from the 

transition, we are amending the 

definition of animal identification 

number (AIN) in this final rule to extend 

by 12 additional months the phase-out 

period for manufacturer-coded AINs. 

The amended definition states that the 

provision under which the 840 AIN will 

be the only one recognized as official 

will become effective on March 11, 

2015. Tamper-evident AIN tags with a 

manufacturer code or USA prefix that 

are applied to animals before that date 

will be recognized as official 

identification for the life of the animals. 

In that the date of tagging cannot always 

be known or documented, we will 

continue to be flexible through the 

transition period, realizing that breeding 

animals with manufacturer-coded tags 

may be in the population for several 

years. 

APHIS does not oppose the other 

options suggested by the commenters of 

having producers provide listings of the 

manufacturer-coded AINs to their State 

or Tribal animal health official or 

having private organizations or 

marketing entities, in cooperation with 

State and Tribal animal health officials, 

coordinate the application, recording, 

and/or management of the 

manufacturer-coded AIN tags. These 

alternatives are best implemented at the 

local level between the State and Tribal 

animal health officials and the 

producers in their area. If the shipping 

State continues to allow the use of 

manufacturer-coded AIN tags after 

APHIS no longer recognizes them as 

official, the receiving State can refuse 

shipments of animals identified with 

such tags. 

We are also making a change to the 

AIN definition in this final rule based 

on another comment we received. A 

comment from an association 

representing Puerto Rican cattle 

producers noted that Puerto Rico has a 

unique country code under ISO (PR, 

PRI, or 630). The commenter requested 

that we amend the definition of AIN in 

the final rule to allow producers in 

Puerto Rico to use the 630 code on RFID 

tags. We support this recommendation 

and are amending the definition of the 

AIN in this final rule to allow Puerto 

Rico and other U.S. territories to use 

their country codes instead of the 840 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2044 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

code issued to the United States. 

However, the territories may continue to 

use 840 AIN tags if they prefer. We are 

also updating the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

document to reference these country 

codes. 

Finally, we are making a minor 

change to the wording of the 

requirement, contained in the proposed 

definition of the AIN, that 840 AIN tags 

be used only on animals born in the 

United States. The amended provision 

states that 840 AIN tags may not be 

applied to animals known to have been 

born in another country. This change 

reflects our view that we cannot 

reasonably expect that the person 

responsible for tagging an animal, or 

having it tagged, will, in every instance, 

possess documentation that verifies a 

U.S. birth location for the animal. In 

many cases, our import requirements for 

live animals in 9 CFR part 93 lessen the 

need for such documentation. For 

example, the overwhelming majority of 

cattle imported into the United States 

come from Canada or Mexico and are 

required to have a brand denoting their 

country of origin. This requirement 

ensures that almost all cattle of non-U.S. 

origin, i.e., cattle ineligible for 

identification with 840 AIN tags, are 

clearly identified as such. 

Some commenters suggested that we 

should expand the proposed definition 

of approved tagging site to include any 

location in the receiving State where 

tagging can be completed prior to 

commingling, as verified by the State 

animal health official. 

The definition contained in the 

August 2011 proposed rule provides for 

locations to become tagging sites when 

authorized by APHIS, State, or Tribal 

animal health officials. It is important 

that such locations are approved by 

animal health officials to ensure that the 

exemption from official identification 

requirements at time of movement 

interstate to an approved tagging site is 

properly administered. While livestock 

markets are frequently referenced as 

being potential approved tagging sites, 

other locations, such as feedlots, could 

become approved tagging sites under 

our definition. Therefore, it is not 

necessary to make any changes to the 

definition of approved tagging site in 

this final rule for the commenters’ 

suggestion to be adopted. 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we 

defined commuter herd as a herd of 

cattle or bison moved interstate during 

the course of normal livestock 

management operations and without 

change of ownership directly between 

two premises, as provided in a 

commuter herd agreement. Under the 

proposed rule, cattle or bison moving 

interstate as part of a commuter herd 

were to be exempted from both official 

identification and ICVI requirements. 

One commenter recommended that 

we amend the definition so that 

shipments of feeder cattle that are 

infrequently consigned or leased as 

rodeo stock could be moved interstate as 

commuter herds. The commenter stated 

that the commuter herd exemptions 

could be justified for such feeder cattle 

because they are not associated with the 

same level of disease risk as are cattle 

regularly used for rodeos or exhibitions. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

Cattle that move interstate, commingle 

with animals from other locations, and 

then return to the original location pose 

a risk for disease transmission. We 

recently experienced an outbreak of a 

disease of horses that was disseminated 

from a regional rodeo to several States. 

Cattle diseases can also be spread in a 

similar manner. 

Some commenters viewed our 

proposed definition of dairy cattle (all 

cattle, regardless of age or sex or current 

use, that are of a breed(s) typically used 

to produce milk or other dairy products 

for human consumption) as vague and 

overly broad, stating that they thought it 

would create significant problems for 

small-scale and diversified dairy 

operations. In particular, commenters 

stated that the definition lacked clarity 

regarding dual-purpose breeds, 

potentially creating confusion about 

which cattle are subject to the more 

stringent dairy cattle requirements. 

After considering these comments, we 

determined that greater precision in the 

definition of dairy cattle would be 

desirable. In this final rule, therefore, 

we are adding to the definition of dairy 

cattle a list of some common dairy 

breeds to serve as examples. 

Specifically, we define dairy cattle as all 

cattle, regardless of age or sex or current 

use, that are of a breed(s) used to 

produce milk or other dairy products for 

human consumption, including, but not 

limited to, Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, 

Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking 

Shorthorn, and Red and Whites. The list 

of representative dairy breeds we are 

incorporating into this definition comes 

from the Purebred Dairy Cattle 

Association. As noted in the definition, 

however, the category of dairy cattle is 

not limited to the listed breeds. While 

we believe that this new definition of 

dairy cattle is clearer than the original 

one we proposed, State, Tribal, or 

Federal animal health officials may still 

be called upon at times to exercise their 

judgments as to whether the cattle in a 

shipment are indeed dairy cattle, taking 

into account such factors as the 

intended use of the animals. 

It was also suggested that we should 

amend the definition of dairy cattle to 

exclude dairy steers and spayed heifers, 

as such animals will not be in the U.S. 

herd for an extended period and 

therefore do not pose a major disease 

risk. 

We disagree with this comment. Dairy 

steers and spayed heifers are part of an 

industry that has been identified as 

posing a high risk for disease 

transmission. Many dairy heifers and 

bull calves are moved from the dairy to 

calf-raising facilities, while some calves, 

mostly bull calves, are marketed 

privately or through livestock markets. 

This degree of movement and 

commingling at young ages and as 

yearlings makes them ‘‘animals of 

interest’’ regardless of whether they 

become herd replacements or feeder 

cattle. Furthermore, dairy steers 

typically are in feeding channels longer 

than beef cattle due to the length of time 

required for the former to reach 

finishing weight. Dairy steers and 

heifers may also undergo more changes 

of ownership and movements where 

commingling occurs than beef calves 

that typically stay with their dams until 

they are weaned. 

Some commenters took issue with our 

proposed definition of directly as 

‘‘without unloading en route if moved 

in a means of conveyance and without 

being commingled with other animals, 

or without stopping, except for stops of 

less than 24 hours that are needed for 

food, water, or rest en route if the 

animals are moved in any other 

manner.’’ A commenter representing the 

pork industry stated that while these 

restrictions were acceptable for swine 

moving for other purposes, swine 

considered to be in slaughter market 

channels should be exempted. Another 

commenter, noting that the proposed 

definition did not allow the animals to 

be unloaded from a conveyance even if 

they aren’t commingled, recommended 

modifying the definition to address ‘‘the 

real risk factor’’ of commingling. 

After reviewing these comments, we 

have decided to revise the definition of 

directly in this final rule to clarify that 

it will allow for necessary stops while 

addressing the risk factor of 

commingling. We are defining directly 

as ‘‘moved in a means of conveyance, 

without stopping to unload while en 

route, except for stops of less than 24 

hours to feed, water, or rest the animals 

being moved, and with no commingling 

of animals at such stops.’’ 

A commenter representing an egg 

producers’ association stated that we 

should clarify the definition of group/lot 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2045 

identification number (GIN) to allow for 

its use on poultry managed together as 

a group throughout the production 

system even if initial placement of birds 

may occur over a more extended period 

than a single day. The proposed 

definition stated that a GIN may be 

applied to a group of animals managed 

together as one group throughout the 

preharvest production chain. The 

commenter stated that the proposed 

definition could be interpreted to mean 

that a group of birds must be assembled 

in one day in order to be eligible for 

official identification by means of a GIN. 

The commenter viewed such a 

requirement as being problematic for the 

commercial egg industry because it is a 

common practice at commercial egg 

farms to place hens in a laying house 

over a period of days. 

The GIN formatting requirements 

contained in the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

document do lend some support to the 

commenter’s concerns over the 

proposed definition. Those formatting 

standards specify that the GIN must 

include a six-digit representation of the 

date on which the group or lot was 

assembled (MM/DD/YY). 

We agree with the commenter on the 

need to recognize current practices in 

the commercial egg industry. While we 

do not judge it to be necessary to amend 

the definition of group/lot identification 

number (GIN) in the regulations, we are 

amending the GIN formatting standards 

in the Animal Disease Traceability 

General Standards document to specify 

that the six-digit date component of the 

GIN may represent either the date on 

which the group or lot of animals was 

assembled or the date when the 

assembly of the group was initiated. 

Another commenter suggested that we 

modify the definition of group/lot 

identification number (GIN) as it applies 

to cattle to recognize that a GIN may be 

effectively used for some classes of 

livestock that may move from one 

location to another but are not managed 

as a group throughout the production 

system. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

The GIN is intended to provide a 

method of livestock identification that is 

cost effective without sacrificing 

traceability. Due to the current gaps in 

animal disease traceability in the cattle 

sector, allowing the formation of 

marketing ‘‘groups’’ using a GIN, 

meaning that a GIN could, for example, 

be used when a group of animals is 

moved from or assembled at one 

premises but then split and/or 

commingled in subsequent movements, 

would be unwise from an 

epidemiological perspective. 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we 

defined interstate certificate of 

veterinary inspection (ICVI) as an 

official document issued by a Federal, 

State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian 

at the location from which animals are 

shipped interstate. The proposed 

definition also listed information 

requirements for the ICVI. A commenter 

representing a pork industry association 

expressed concern that the proposed 

definition could be misconstrued to 

require the ICVI to be physically issued 

by the veterinarian at the shipping 

location. The commenter stated that it is 

common in the industry for livestock to 

be inspected at veterinary offices and an 

ICVI issued while the animals are in 

transport from origin to destination, a 

practice that provides a savings to the 

producer by supporting timely 

movement and clear identification of 

animals involved in interstate 

transportation. 

The proposed definition of the ICVI 

did not prohibit the issuance of an ICVI 

at a veterinary clinic. The interstate 

movement could very well begin at a 

veterinary clinic, with prior movements 

to the clinic considered to be 

‘‘intrastate’’ and not covered by these 

regulations. In order to clarify that ICVIs 

may be issued at veterinary clinics, 

however, as well as the premises at 

which they originated and other 

locations, we are amending the 

definition of interstate certificate of 

veterinary inspection (ICVI) in this final 

rule. The amended definition states that 

the ICVI is an official document issued 

by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited 

veterinarian certifying the inspection of 

animals in preparation for interstate 

movement. 

A commenter stated that our 

definition of livestock as ‘‘all farmraised animals’’ is vague and open to 

problems of interpretation. It was stated 

that, rather than tying our definition to 

a farm, we should define livestock by 

species. 

As we noted in the preamble to the 

August 2011 proposed rule, our 

definition of livestock was incorporated 

directly from the Animal Health 

Protection Act. As we also noted then, 

the definition is a broad one covering 

species that are not included in this 

rulemaking but that could be 

commingled at venues, such as 

approved livestock facilities, with those 

species that are. Along with the 

definition of livestock, we included in 

the proposed rule a separate definition 

of covered livestock that listed the 

species subject to the requirements of 

the proposed new CFR traceability part. 

We included the latter definition in the 

proposed rule to remove any possible 

ambiguity regarding which species were 

covered under the rulemaking. 

Therefore, we are not making any 

changes to the final rule in response to 

this comment. 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we 

defined official eartag as an 

identification tag approved by APHIS 

that bears an official identification 

number for individual animals. The 

proposed definition further stated that 

beginning 1 year after the effective date 

of the final rule, all official eartags 

applied to animals would have to bear 

the U.S. shield. Previously, the 

definition of official eartag used 

elsewhere in the regulations, e.g., in 

§ 71.1, required that the U.S. shield be 

used only on official eartags bearing an 

840 AIN. We proposed to broaden the 

U.S. shield requirement to all official 

eartags in order to achieve greater 

standardization of this type of official 

identification device. 

Some commenters objected to the 

proposed U.S. shield requirement for all 

official eartags. It was stated that the 

proposed requirement effectively 

mandated that private property be 

identified with a U.S. shield. Some 

commenters recommended that we 

allow official eartags to bear a State seal 

rather than the U.S. shield or that we 

allow States and Tribes to issue their 

own official identification tags without 

the U.S. shield, as long as combining the 

tag number and State identifier resulted 

in a unique number. It was claimed that 

a State code on an eartag actually 

provides the most important 

information enabling traceback. 

After considering these comments, we 

have decided to amend the definition of 

official eartag in this final rule in a way 

that will allow the imprinting of a State 

postal abbreviation or Tribal alpha code 

within the shield in lieu of ‘‘US.’’ 

Instead of a U.S. shield, official eartags 

will have to bear an official eartag 

shield. This final rule includes a new 

definition of official eartag shield in 

§ 86.1, as well as in §§ 71.1, 77.2, and 

78.1. We define official eartag shield as 

the shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. 

Route Shield, with ‘‘US’’ or the State 

postal abbreviation or a Tribal alpha 

code imprinted within the shield. The 

alpha codes for Tribes, published in the 

Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards document, may be used by 

Tribes that administer their own 

traceability systems. The States or 

Tribes will have the discretion to 

request that their postal abbreviations or 

alpha codes be imprinted on tags they 

obtain from approved manufacturers. 

Additionally, to ease the transition for 

producers, the revised definition will 

state that beginning on March 11, 2013, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2046 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

all official eartags manufactured will 

have to bear the official eartag shield, 

but all official eartags applied to 

animals will not have to bear that 

official eartag shield until March 11, 

2015. 

We believe that these changes are 

responsive to the issues raised by the 

commenters, while still achieving 

greater standardization of official eartags 

without lessening traceability or 

increasing costs. 

A commenter representing a cattle 

producers’ association favored altering 

the proposed definition of official 

identification device or method, which 

stated that such devices or methods 

were means of applying an official 

identification number to an animal or 

group of animals or otherwise officially 

identifying an animal or group of 

animals. The commenter wanted the 

definition to be broadened so that it 

would not preclude the use of other, 

non-numerical means of identification, 

such as brands. 

The proposed definition allowed for 

the use of brands or tattoos or other 

methods in lieu of official identification 

devices when agreed to by the States or 

Tribes involved in the movement. 

Nevertheless, as discussed in greater 

detail below, we are making changes in 

this final rule to recognize brands, 

tattoos, and other methods as means of 

official identification for cattle and 

bison. 

The same commenter also suggested 

that we add a definition to the final rule 

of official identification as ‘‘any means 

of identification agreed upon by animal 

health officials in the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes.’’ Other 

commenters took a similar view, though 

they did not recommend adding that 

specific definition. 

It is our view that recognizing any 

identification method agreed to by the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

as official would expand the range of 

identification methods that would be so 

recognized to an unacceptable degree, 

thereby hindering traceability. However, 

in keeping with our goal of having a 

flexible traceability system, we will 

allow for the use of other options 

deemed adequate at the local level by 

retaining in this final rule the provision 

that the shipping and receiving States or 

Tribes may agree to accept any other 

form of identification in lieu of official 

identification. 

We are making a change to the 

definition of recognized slaughtering 

establishment in 9 CFR parts 77, 78, and 

86 of this final rule. In the proposed 

rule, recognized slaughtering 

establishment was defined as any 

slaughtering facility operating under the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.), the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or 

State meat or poultry inspection acts. 

Under the existing regulations in 9 CFR 

71.21, slaughtering establishments may 

receive animals moved in interstate 

commerce only if they have been 

approved for that purpose by the 

Administrator. The amended definition 

of recognized slaughtering 

establishment in this final rule states 

that, in addition to meeting the 

requirements listed above, the 

establishment must be approved in 

accordance with § 71.21. 

Finally, while we are issuing a revised 

version of the Animal Disease 

Traceability Standards document 

concurrently with this final rule, we are 

removing the definition of that 

document from the definitions section 

because it is not used elsewhere in the 

regulatory text. 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

Recordkeeping requirements, which 

were contained in § 90.3 of the August 

2011 proposed rule, are contained in 

§ 86.3 of this final rule. 

Many commenters expressed the view 

that the requirements in the proposed 

rule for maintaining official 

identification device distribution 

records and interstate movement 

records would be burdensome for 

veterinarians, sale barns, livestock 

markets and/or small producers. Under 

the proposed rule, any State, Tribe, 

accredited veterinarian, or other person 

or entity who distributes official 

identification devices was required to 

maintain for 5 years a record of the 

names and addresses of anyone to 

whom the devices were distributed. 

Approved livestock facilities were 

required to keep for at least 5 years any 

ICVIs or alternate documentation that is 

required under the regulations for the 

interstate movement of any covered 

livestock entering the facility. It was 

stated that the proposed requirements 

were excessive for traceability needs in 

the poultry industry, since most broilers 

are slaughtered by about 8 weeks of age. 

A commenter representing a poultry 

association recommended that the 

requirement be for 2 years for poultry. 

The 5-year requirement was also 

deemed by some commenters to be 

excessive for feeder cattle, given their 

relatively short life spans. It was also 

suggested that the requirement should 

be 2 years for swine. 

We agree with the commenters who 

stated that the requirements for 

maintaining movement records should 

reflect animal life cycles and industry 

practices. The lifespans of poultry and 

swine are relatively short compared 

with those of other species of covered 

livestock. We are therefore reducing the 

requirement for maintaining movement 

records to 2 years for poultry and swine. 

In this final rule, however, we are 

retaining the 5-year requirement for the 

maintenance of official identification 

device distribution records. This 

requirement is warranted, as many of 

the species typically identified with 

eartags are those with the longer 

lifespans, with the exception of swine. 

Also, many official eartag distribution 

records do not include a species 

indicator; thus, having tag distribution 

records maintained specifically by 

species would often not be practical. 

Increasingly, these records will be 

maintained in electronic information 

systems, rather than on paper, making 

the recordkeeping requirement less 

burdensome. 

It was also stated that the records that 

would be required under the proposed 

rule are maintained by States already, 

making our proposed requirements 

duplicative and burdening States 

unnecessarily. 

Many States and Tribes do already 

have recordkeeping requirements at the 

local level. For States and Tribes with 

requirements that meet or exceed those 

included in this rule, there would be no 

additional burden. For States and Tribes 

that do not meet the minimum 

requirements, additional administrative 

processes may be needed or new rules 

may need to be promulgated at the State 

or Tribal level. States and Tribes receive 

Federal assistance through cooperative 

agreements for data processing and 

recordkeeping for animal disease 

traceability, lessening their financial 

burdens. We have the endorsement of 

the United States Animal Health 

Association, which has representation 

from all State animal health officials, for 

our recordkeeping requirements and for 

this rulemaking overall. 

Contrary to the sentiments voiced by 

many of the commenters, a few 

questioned whether a 5-year 

recordkeeping requirement was 

adequate, given the long incubation 

period of such animal diseases as 

bovine spongiform encephalopathy 

(BSE). One commenter stated that 

movement records should be kept for 

the entire life span of an individual 

animal. 

We will not be making any changes to 

this final rule as a result of these 

comments. As States and Tribes convert 

from paper-based to electronic 

recordkeeping systems, the length of 

time that records need to be stored 

becomes less of an issue. We believe, in 

fact, that those electronic records will be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2047 

maintained well beyond the minimum 

requirements. At the present time, we 

believe that the requirements we 

include in this rulemaking achieve a 

good balance between what is needed 

and what is cost effective to achieve. 

Official Identification Requirements 

Official identification requirements 

for covered livestock, which were 

contained in § 90.4 of the August 2011 

proposed rule, are contained in § 86.4 of 

this final rule. 

Cattle and Bison 

The August 2011 proposed rule 

included a schedule for the phasing in 

of official identification requirements 

for cattle and bison. We proposed that, 

beginning on the effective date of this 

final rule, the requirements would cover 

all sexually intact cattle and bison aged 

18 months and over; dairy cattle of any 

age; and cattle and bison of any age used 

for rodeos, recreational events, shows, 

or exhibitions. We deemed it essential 

to apply the official identification 

requirements immediately to those 

categories because they tend to live 

longer than feeder cattle, move around 

more, and have more opportunities for 

commingling, thus presenting a great 

risk of spreading disease via interstate 

movement. We further proposed to 

initiate a second implementation phase, 

in which we would extend the 

requirements to cover all other classes 

of cattle and bison, including feeders, 

after conducting an assessment and 

determining that the requirements were 

being implemented effectively 

throughout the production chain for the 

cattle and bison covered under the 

initial phase. 

Many commenters objected to our 

plans to include feeder cattle (cattle 

under 18 months of age) in the second 

phase of our implementation of these 

traceability regulations. It was stated 

that it was unnecessary to include 

feeder cattle because most of them are 

destined for slaughter before the age of 

2 years and hence do not pose much 

risk of spreading disease. Other 

commenters stated that the sheer 

number of animals that will be required 

to be identified and tracked under these 

regulations will make including feeder 

cattle very costly for producers, 

veterinarians, sale barns, and State 

agencies and that the volume of 

information that will need to be 

generated may swamp the whole 

system, for no significant benefit. The 

eartagging requirement for feeder cattle 

was viewed by some commenters as 

particularly burdensome for producers 

and others, and it was stated that 

identifying feeder cattle will not help in 

disease control. 

We view the inclusion of feeder cattle 

in the traceability regulations as an 

essential component of an effective 

traceability system in the long term. 

Typical cattle management systems do 

not isolate feeder cattle from exposure 

to diseases. The epidemiological factors 

that support a complete, overarching 

traceability system in the United States 

require that all ages and classes of cattle 

be included in the animal disease 

traceability framework. 

Many other commenters, including 

several representing cattle producers’ 

organizations, recognized the necessity 

of adding feeder cattle to the traceability 

system but stated that such cattle should 

be added in a separate rulemaking for 

maximum transparency. Some of these 

commenters stated that they could not 

support the proposed rule as written if 

feeder cattle were not added in a 

separate rulemaking rather than under 

the notice-based process that we 

proposed. 

After reviewing these comments, we 

have concluded that the inclusion of 

feeder cattle within the traceability 

framework can best be achieved through 

a separate future rulemaking, as the 

commenters recommended. 

As noted above, we indicated in the 

August 2011 proposed rule that we 

would apply the official identification 

requirements to feeder cattle only after 

conducting an assessment and 

determining that the requirements were 

being implemented effectively 

throughout the production chain for 

those classes of cattle and bison covered 

under the initial implementation phase. 

Many industry commenters offered 

suggestions for an alternative 

assessment model to the one we 

described in the proposed rule. While 

feeder cattle will be subject to the 

official identification requirements in a 

future rulemaking rather than the 

current one, APHIS still recognizes the 

merits of conducting such an 

assessment as that future rulemaking is 

being considered. APHIS plans to 

consult closely with representatives 

from States, Tribes, and industry, 

including individuals from stocker/ 

feeder sectors most affected by applying 

the official identification requirements 

to feeder cattle and most knowledgeable 

about the practical issues and concerns 

that can arise as a result. 

One commenter expressed the 

concern that by requiring individual 

identification for sexually intact cattle 

over 18 months in the current 

rulemaking, we will inadvertently be 

including feeder heifers that were never 

intended to go into a breeding herd but 

that are being shipped to feedlots out of 

State. 

When this final rule becomes 

effective, sexually intact beef heifers 

less than 18 months of age will be 

exempt from the official identification 

requirements, thus avoiding potential 

conflicts in determining if the animal is 

in feeder channels or being used for 

breeding purposes. 

Some commenters, including the one 

who wrote to express concerns about 

including feeder heifers in this 

rulemaking, advocated increasing the 

age for the category of feeder cattle. It 

was stated that the identification 

requirements should apply to sexually 

intact cattle 24 months and older rather 

than 18 months and older. Another 

commenter from the same State 

indicated that 24 months would better 

represent the age of feeder cattle in that 

State, as under common operating 

conditions, calves after weaning may 

remain on pasture or grass until 2 years 

of age before being sold as feeder cattle. 

We recognize the management and 

marketing challenges the 18-month age 

limit may cause, but emphasize the 

importance of retaining it based on the 

need to identify cattle and bison for 

disease control purposes. The 18-month 

age threshold has been used 

successfully in the brucellosis 

eradication program to define testeligible cattle. Age, when not 

documented, can more accurately be 

determined for cattle at 18 months of 

age, as they would have lost their first 

pair of temporary incisors, than it can at 

24 months. The need to officially 

identify this class and age category is 

further demonstrated when we note that 

since 1995, the number of heifers 

vaccinated for brucellosis has declined 

by approximately 50 percent, and the 

trend continues. Today, fewer than 20 

percent of heifers are vaccinated for 

brucellosis. This low level of official 

identification is concerning, in 

particular for a class of animals of 

which many will be part of the breeding 

herd. For those heifers that were 

vaccinated for brucellosis, the official 

eartag applied to meet the identification 

requirements for vaccinates would meet 

the need for official identification 

required by this rule. We have noted 

several times that the States and Tribes 

have the option to recognize alternative 

forms of identification when both the 

shipping and receiving animal health 

officials agree. This flexibility allows 

unique and/or regional issues to be 

considered at the local level. In the 

scenario provided by the commenters, 

we believe that the alternatives to the 

official identification requirement for 

interstate movement of feeder heifers 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2048 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

over 18 months of age to feedlots can 

best be administered by the shipping 

and receiving State and Tribe. 

Exempting all heifers over 18 months of 

age would hinder traceability 

nationwide; thus, in these regulations, 

we are maintaining the 18-month age 

cut-off for the official identification 

requirement. Under these regulations, 

however, calves that remain after 

weaning on pasture or grass until 2 

years of age before being sold as feeder 

cattle will not have to be officially 

identified before 24 months because 

they are not moving interstate until 

then. 

Use of Brands as Official Identification 

for Cattle 

One aspect of the August 2011 

proposed rule that generated many 

comments was our decision to recognize 

only official eartags as a means of 

officially identifying individual cattle. 

Many commenters expressed the view 

that brands should continue to be 

recognized as an official method of 

identification for cattle and bison when 

the shipping and receiving States and 

Tribes agreed. Many of these 

commenters also maintained that we 

should continue to recognize tattoos as 

official. Commenters pointed out that 

brands have worked effectively in brand 

States for many years and that they 

provide a permanent method of 

identification, whereas eartags can be 

removed or lost. It was further stated by 

one commenter that electronic brand 

inspection certificates are a great aid to 

traceability, as they can provide 

traceback to the premises of origin for 

individual animals in less than 30 

minutes. It was also claimed that the 

delisting of brands as a means of official 

identification would strip from States 

and Tribes the option of continuing to 

rely upon the brand accompanied by a 

brand certificate. A commenter further 

claimed that removing brands from the 

regulations as a means of official 

identification for cattle would 

discriminate against producers in States 

that require brand inspection as a 

condition of leaving a brand inspection 

area because such producers would 

have to pay for both the brand 

inspection and for other identification 

as well, as required by the proposed 

rule. 

APHIS recognizes that brands and 

brand-certificate information can 

provide timely information that may 

enhance disease traceback 

investigations. The original intent of the 

proposed official identification 

requirements was to define as official 

identification devices and methods 

those that could easily be administered 

by all States and Tribes, since all States 

and Tribes would be required to accept 

all official identification devices and 

methods listed in the regulations for 

each species. As we noted in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, we did 

not view brands as suitable for listing as 

a means of official identification for 

cattle because 36 States currently do not 

have brand inspection authorities. The 

option for States and Tribes to accept 

other identification methods, such as 

brands, in lieu of official identification 

was provided for in the proposed rule. 

Some commenters provided 

recommendations for alternative text 

that would maintain the initial intent of 

the proposed requirements, while 

achieving the recognition of brands as 

an official identification method under 

specific conditions. Several commenters 

suggested that brands be accepted as 

official identification via bilateral or 

multilateral agreements or 

memorandum(s) of understanding 

between or among agreeing shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes. 

APHIS appreciates and supports the 

suggested text revisions, and in this 

final rule, we are modifying § 86.4(a)(1) 

to add to the list of official identification 

devices and methods for cattle brands 

registered with a recognized brand 

inspection authority and accompanied 

by an official brand inspection 

certificate if the shipping and receiving 

State or Tribal animal health authorities 

agree to recognize them as such. We are 

also amending the paragraph to 

recognize as official identification 

tattoos and other identification methods 

acceptable to a breed association for 

registration purposes, provided that the 

animals are accompanied by a breed 

registration certificate and that the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

agree to recognize them as such. 

Some commenters cited as a concern 

the possible effects of the proposed 

official identification requirements for 

cattle on our import requirements. A 

commenter stated that in the in an 

earlier rulemaking (70 FR 459–553, 

Docket No. 03–080–3) in which we 

established requirements for the 

importation of animals and animal 

products from minimal-risk regions for 

BSE, we cited brands as a permanent 

form of identification and 

acknowledged that eartags may be lost. 

Under that rulemaking, imported 

bovines had to be identified with both 

brands and eartags. Another commenter 

stated that since cattle imported from 

Canada and Mexico are currently 

required to have a hot-iron brand, if we 

were to stop recognizing hot-iron brands 

as official identification for domestic 

cattle, those nations could claim that the 

United States is imposing a higher 

standard on their producers than on 

domestic producers. The commenter 

stated that we may not be able to keep 

the branding requirement in effect for 

imported cattle. 

This rulemaking does not affect our 

import/export requirements. While 

brands may be used as official 

identification for cattle moving 

interstate in accordance with the 

provisions of this final rule, the 

branding of imported cattle from Canada 

and Mexico is not intended to provide 

official individual identification, but is 

rather a permanent mark used to 

designate the country that exported the 

animal. 

One commenter stated that brands, 

accompanied by a certificate from a 

recognized brand inspection authority, 

should be allowed as a group/lot 

identifier. It was claimed that brands are 

more effective than any other means of 

group/lot identification provided for in 

the proposed rule and are the only 

means that would enable a traceback of 

a group/lot that inadvertently becomes 

separated from a herd and for which the 

paperwork is lost or destroyed. 

The GIN provides a uniform standard 

for identifying groups of animals that 

are managed together throughout the 

preharvest production chain. In such a 

situation, the group is identified in its 

entirety as it moves from location to 

location with the GIN. The Animal 

Disease Traceability General Standards 

document provides the format 

specifications for the GIN. This standard 

number format is needed to establish 

and maintain compatibility of 

information systems. 

Animals that are not maintained with 

the group will need to be identified with 

an official eartag or as otherwise agreed 

to by the animal health officials of the 

shipping and receiving State or Tribe. 

The revised definition of official 

identification device or method 

recognizes brand certificates as official 

when agreed to by the shipping and 

receiving State and Tribe. While we will 

be maintaining the numbering format 

specification for the GIN, States and 

Tribes have the option to accept other 

methods of identification, including 

those of groups of animals. 

Finally, in contrast to the general 

trend of the comments on branding, one 

commenter supported the delisting of 

brands as a means of individual 

identification because of the cost to 

producers of brand inspections and 

health papers in brand-inspection 

States. 

We are not making any changes to this 

final rule in response to this comment. 

Health papers and brand inspection are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2049 

two different activities. States that have 

elected to administer brand inspections 

have done so for purposes of 

determining ownership and preventing 

theft. Health papers, such as ICVIs, 

provide documentation that an 

accredited veterinarian has examined 

the health of the animals. 

Identification of Direct-to-Slaughter 

Cattle 

Many commenters favored exempting 

all direct-to-slaughter cattle from any 

identification requirements. It was 

stated that the risks to animals and the 

personnel that would be tasked with 

tagging them, along with the costs of 

tagging and reading tags, outweigh the 

benefits of tagging. 

We agree that cattle moving directly 

to slaughter pose less of a disease risk 

than do other cattle, and we did allow 

in the August 2011 proposed rule for the 

use of backtags in lieu of official 

identification for cattle moving directly 

to slaughter. We view exempting such 

animals from any identification 

requirements as a hindrance to 

traceability, however. 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we 

indicated that our recognition of 

backtags in lieu of official identification 

for direct-to-slaughter cattle was to be 

phased out. Many commenters opposed 

the phase-out of backtags for identifying 

slaughter cattle. It was stated that while 

backtags have a poor reputation when 

placed improperly and when not 

collected by USDA’s Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) or plant 

personnel at slaughter, when they are 

properly placed, carefully collected, and 

recorded, backtags are an economically 

efficient, easily readable, and recordable 

form of identification for slaughter 

cattle. 

After reviewing these comments, we 

have decided to amend § 86.4(b)(1) in 

this final rule to allow permanently the 

use of backtags in lieu of official 

identification, albeit with some new 

stipulations. One commenter who 

supported the proposed phase-out of the 

use of backtags in lieu of official 

identification for direct-to-slaughter 

animals thought the phase-out 

appropriate because some slaughter 

establishments put some cattle on feed 

after they arrive at the plant for 

conditioning purposes. After this 

extended period of time, the backtags 

are unlikely to be on the animals when 

the animals are harvested. Therefore, we 

are stipulating that the exemption from 

the requirement for official 

identification only applies when the 

animals going directly to slaughter are 

harvested within 3 days of their 

movement to the slaughter plant. This 

exemption is intended to apply only to 

cattle that are moving directly to a 

slaughter plant to be slaughtered shortly 

after arrival. We agree with the 

commenter’s concern about the 

practicality of using backtags for 

slaughter animals when the animals are 

not going to be slaughtered shortly after 

their arrival. We believe that the 3-day 

timeframe adequately address that 

concern. Cattle moved to slaughter will 

typically be slaughtered within 3 days 

of that movement. If they are not 

slaughtered within 3 days, the 

movement is not considered to be 

directly to slaughter, and permanent 

official identification is required to 

ensure that proper identification is 

maintained until slaughter. If the 

determination to hold animals for more 

than 3 days is made after the animals 

arrive at the slaughter establishment, the 

animals must be officially identified 

with an official identification device. 

Such identification will be considered a 

retagging event in accordance with 

§ 86.4(d)(4)(ii). 

Another commenter stated that 

backtags used on slaughter cattle can 

sometimes be lost during high-pressure 

washing prior to slaughter. To address 

this issue, we have amended § 86.4(d)(2) 

in this final rule to account for the cross 

referencing of all animals, as well as 

their carcasses, with backtags or other 

identification received by the slaughter 

plant. Requiring the cross-referencing of 

the devices with the live animals, and 

not just their carcasses, will help to 

ensure that traceback capability is not 

lost between arrival at the plant and 

slaughter. 

Approved Tagging Sites 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we 

provided an exemption to the 

requirement that cattle and bison must 

be officially identified prior to interstate 

movement if the cattle or bison were 

moved directly to an approved tagging 

site and officially identified prior to 

commingling with cattle and bison from 

other premises. Some commenters 

favored allowing approved tagging sites 

to tag cattle moved interstate with a 

back tag prior to commingling, which 

then could be correlated with the 

official eartag once the cattle are sold 

and sorted and before further 

movement. It was suggested that such 

an approach would enable markets that 

become approved tagging sites to better 

manage the flow of cattle in and out of 

the sites on a sale day, since having to 

tag cattle and bison with an eartag prior 

to commingling could prevent such 

facilities from operating at the speed of 

commerce. 

We recognize that applying the 

official eartag on cattle or bison received 

at approved tagging sites before they are 

commingled can be problematic in some 

situations. Therefore, this final rule 

allows the use of backtags prior to 

commingling, as well as other practices 

that will enable approved tagging sites 

to efficiently manage livestock while 

ensuring that the identity of each animal 

is accurately maintained until tagging so 

that official eartags may be correlated to 

the person responsible for shipping the 

animals to the tagging site. 

Commuter Herds 

Another exemption from the official 

identification requirements was 

provided for cattle and bison moving 

interstate as part of a commuter herd 

with a copy of the commuter herd 

agreement. It was recommended that we 

also allow the use of other 

documentation or forms as agreed to by 

the States or Tribes involved in these 

movements that may not specifically be 

labeled or called commuter herd 

agreements. We agree with this 

comment, as it is in keeping with our 

approach to developing a traceability 

system that will allow States and Tribes 

to use the methods that work best for 

them, and we are amending § 86.4(b)(1) 

accordingly. 

Use of Multiple Eartags 

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we 

prohibited the use of multiple official 

identification devices on a single animal 

with the following exceptions: 

• A State or Tribal animal health 

official or an area veterinarian in charge 

could approve the application of a 

second official identification device in 

specific cases when the need to 

maintain the identity of an animal is 

intensified, such as for export 

shipments, quarantined herds, field 

trials, experiments, or disease surveys, 

but not merely for convenience in 

identifying animals. 

• An eartag with an AIN beginning 

with the 840 prefix (either RFID or 

visual-only tag) may be applied to an 

animal that is already officially 

identified with an eartag with a NUES 

number, as AIN devices are commonly 

used for herd management purposes. 

• A brucellosis vaccination eartag 

with a NUES number could be applied 

for management purposes in accordance 

with the existing brucellosis regulations 

to an animal that is already officially 

identified under the traceability 

regulations. 

Many commenters opposed the 

proposed restrictions, with some 

questioning our rationale that the use of 

multiple official identification devices 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

on the same animal can cause confusion 

and impede efforts to track the 

movements of that animal. Some of 

these commenters stated that, contrary 

to our view, using multiple official 

identification devices on the same 

animal can create redundancies and 

thereby aid traceability. Other 

commenters requested clarification of 

the requirements, suggesting that if 

brands or tattoos were to be allowed as 

official identification for cattle in the 

final rule, then the prohibition on 

multiple official identification devices 

would seem to preclude the use of 

eartags on branded or tattooed cattle. 

As stated in the preamble of the 

August 2011 proposed rule, the use of 

multiple official eartags with multiple 

official identification numbers for a 

single animal can cause confusion and 

impede efforts to track the movements 

of that animal. This problem has 

primarily occurred when the same 

animal had multiple National Uniform 

Eartagging System (NUES) eartags, 

sometimes as many as three or more. We 

acknowledge that having more than one 

NUES tag may provide additional points 

of reference for the animal’s location. 

For example, if the animal with 

multiple NUES tags is the index animal 

that has tested positive for the disease 

under investigation, the multiple NUES 

tag numbers for that animal are all 

recorded when the traceback 

investigation is initiated. While 

applying an additional NUES eartag 

effectively identifies the cattle in the 

shipment, however, the animals become 

difficult to trace when the official 

number on the new official eartag is not 

recorded or aligned with the initial or 

existing NUES tag number. An 

investigating animal health officer often 

sees tag numbers on epidemiological 

reports of suspect animals that need to 

be located for testing. Without being 

able to cross-reference the multiple 

official identification numbers, the 

animal health official can only assume 

that each official identification number 

that becomes part of the investigation 

represents a different animal that must 

each be traced. This increases the 

complexity of the traceback and 

lengthens the investigation. 

After reviewing the comments on this 

issue, we considered requiring 

recording the initial number(s) when 

applying an additional official eartag to 

align the official identification numbers 

of the new tag and the tag(s) already 

attached to the animal and reflect that 

both the existing eartag(s) and the new 

eartag are on the same animal. However 

we determined it was more practical to 

adhere to the general approach we took 

in the proposed rule, which was to 

prohibit the application of additional 

official identification devices to a single 

animal unless warranted by a specific 

situation. We are, however, clarifying 

that the restriction applies to official 

eartags only. As noted above, under the 

provisions of this final rule, brands, 

tattoos, and breed registry certificates 

may be recognized as official by 

shipping and receiving States and 

Tribes. Because only the use of multiple 

official eartags will be restricted, it will 

be permissible to tag animals already 

identified with brands or tattoos. 

Adjusting for instances where 

stakeholders have indicated that 

additional official eartags would 

provide herd management advantages, 

we are also clarifying the language of 

the above-listed exceptions, including 

information recording requirements, 

and adding an exception that will allow 

the use of multiple official eartags with 

the same official identification number 

on a single animal. Producers often use 

AIN tags to manage herds because the 

tags are large enough to contain both 

management numbers and the AIN. Tag 

manufacturers, at the request of 

producers, have provided sets of two or 

three tags with the same AIN. This 

allows the AIN eartag to be applied in 

each ear; in some situations, a smaller 

button or RFID tag with the same 

number is applied to one of the ears. 

AIN tags with the same number thus 

may be applied to the same animal. 

While metal NUES tags have not been 

provided in sets, this option will apply 

to any official eartag produced with the 

same number and attached to the same 

animal. 

Removal or Loss of Official 

Identification Devices 

Some cattle producers stated that 

traceability considerations are often 

ignored by slaughterhouses, and the 

traceability of an animal is lost and 

open to fraud once an animal is 

dismembered and its tags separated 

from the meat. It was suggested that 

such noncompliance could continue to 

hinder traceability even after 

traceability program is implemented. 

Many of these commenters stated that 

before the proposed rule is finalized, 

APHIS must have a defined plan and 

agreement in place with FSIS and/or the 

harvesting establishments relative to the 

collection and recording of retired tags 

at slaughter. Such recording and 

retirement is necessary for a bookend 

system to function. 

We recognize that compliance with all 

the regulations is important to support 

traceability and plan to work with FSIS 

and slaughter plants to ensure the 

collection of identification devices. A 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

will be established between APHIS and 

FSIS regarding the responsibilities of 

the two agencies for the collection of 

identification at the slaughter plants. 

We are also amending § 86.4(d)(2) to 

state explicitly that collecting 

identification devices at slaughter and 

providing them to APHIS and FSIS is 

the responsibility of the slaughter plant. 

Additionally, this rulemaking requires 

that a cross reference of the carcass and 

the animal’s identification be 

maintained through carcass inspection. 

Maintaining the identity past that 

inspection is outside the scope of these 

regulations, however. When the carcass 

passes inspection, the collected 

identification devices are to be provided 

to APHIS, which will be responsible for 

the administration of tag and animal 

termination recording. 

Replacement of Official Eartags 

Some commenters stated that our 

proposed process for replacing lost tags 

would necessitate additional 

recordkeeping and place an unrealistic 

burden on small producers. It was 

recommended that producers be 

exempted from the 5-year recordkeeping 

requirement associated with applying a 

new device after one has been lost. 

The vast majority of the records that 

support the traceability regulations will 

be maintained by individuals other than 

producers. Since producers may retag 

animals that lose their official eartags, 

they may be the only ones that have 

such information. Therefore, these 

records must be maintained by the 

producer. While tag loss is expected, the 

percentage of animals that lose their 

eartags is a small percentage of all 

animals tagged. Therefore, the volume 

of records any producer will need to 

maintain for this requirement is 

expected to be quite low. 

Some commenters requested that we 

amend the final rule to allow producers 

to obtain a replacement AIN tag with the 

same 840 AIN when a tag has been lost 

or is no longer a viable tag. It was stated 

that because these tags are already used 

for management purposes in many 

dairies and some beef operations, 

allowing producers to replace AIN/840 

tags with duplicates would avoid 

unnecessary confusion that could be 

caused by assigning an animal more 

than one number and thus help to 

maintain the viability and integrity of 

the national traceability system. 

We agree with this comment. In fact, 

while the proposed rule did not include 

regulatory text allowing for the issuance 

of such duplicate tags, it did not 

expressly prohibit such issuance either. 

The existing Animal Identification 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2051 

Management System (AIMS) has had a 

tag reporting option established for AIN 

device manufacturers for reporting the 

distribution of duplicate AIN eartags. 

Additionally, ISO 11784, which AIN 

radio frequency tags adhere to, provides 

for the encoding of a portion of the code 

for the administration of duplicate 

replacement tags. Nonetheless, we are 

amending § 86.4(d)(4) in this final rule 

to allow for both the retagging of 

animals with tags imprinted with 

different official identification numbers 

from the ones being replaced and 

retagging of animals with replacement 

or duplicate tags that have the same 

official identification number as was 

imprinted on the animal’s initial official 

eartag. While the commenters 

referenced the issuance of duplicate 

replacement eartags for 840 AIN tags 

only, the amended text allows for the 

use, as well, of other animal numbering 

systems that can readily be produced 

with the animal’s original number. The 

protocol for the administration of 

duplicate replacement eartags is 

provided for in the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

document, a revised version of which is 

being released in conjunction with this 

final rule. 

Other Issues Pertaining to the Use of 

Official Eartags on Cattle 

Some commenters recommended that 

the final rule should allow the use of 

owner-shipper tags, for feeder cattle 

only, at receiving locations for cattle 

owners or shippers who lack tagging 

facilities and who sell directly to buyer 

in another State. A few of these 

commenters, while supporting the 

recommendation, stated that this tagging 

option should be allowed only at an 

approved tagging site. 

While markets are likely to be the 

most common locations that become 

approved tagging sites, animal health 

officials may approve feedlots to tag 

animals on behalf of the producer that 

shipped or sold the animals. This 

exemption from the requirement for 

official identification prior to interstate 

movement, however, is limited to 

locations that are approved tagging sites. 

Producers that elect to use a tagging site 

may choose to obtain the official eartags 

and provide them to the personnel of 

the tagging site to have those official 

tags applied to their animals. We 

consider the option of officially 

identifying animals at any destination to 

be too broad, potentially leading to 

deficiencies in the maintenance of 

identification records. The approval 

process for tagging sites allows for 

oversight of these locations to ensure 

that necessary records are properly 

maintained and provides adequate 

flexibility to allow States and Tribes to 

determine the extent to which tagging 

sites are utilized. 

Some commenters suggested that we 

should require a State code to be 

imprinted on official eartags. It was 

claimed that a State code provides the 

most important information needed to 

enable traceback. 

While the numbering system for the 

NUES utilizes State and Tribal codes, 

the 840 AIN does not. States that obtain 

AIN devices may elect to have the State 

abbreviation imprinted on the AIN 

eartags, and several States are doing so 

when they obtain the tags. Unlike NUES 

tags, the AIN tags are available in many 

tag types, currently exceeding 40. The 

inventorying of multiple tag types by 

States and Tribes creates significant 

logistical challenges, and to minimize 

the options would lessen the flexibility 

currently provided. While States and/or 

producers that obtain the tags may have 

their State or Tribal codes imprinted on 

them, we determined that requiring it to 

be imprinted on the tag or to be part of 

the AIN would cause tag distribution 

inefficiencies that outweighed the 

potential advantages. For example, 

because the distribution of AIN tags is 

not limited to direct shipment from the 

manufacturer to the producer’s farm at 

the time of manufacture, the State where 

the farm receiving the tags is located 

may be unknown. Additionally, 

maintaining distribution records of both 

NUES tags and AIN tags in electronic 

systems is imperative for timely 

retrieval of tag distribution data for 

traceback investigations, as the State 

designations alone are typically not 

specific enough for this purpose. 

Our reliance on eartags for official 

identification in the proposed 

traceability regulations was questioned 

by some commenters on the grounds 

that tagging is not necessarily 

synonymous with effective traceability. 

We agree that official identification in 

itself is not sufficient for an effective 

traceability system. When combined, 

however, with the information obtained 

from the records of tag distribution and 

the availability of management records 

and movement documents with 

nationally unique numbers, eartags have 

been and will continue to be invaluable 

to traceback investigations. 

In our earlier discussion of the 

definition of official eartag, we noted 

that some commenters opposed the U.S. 

shield requirement, and we amended 

the definition in response to those 

comments. Some of those commenters 

recommended that we allow States and 

Tribes to issue their own official 

identification tags without the U.S. 

shield, as long as combining the tag 

number and State identifier resulted in 

a unique number. 

A standardized way of marking all 

official tags is considered critical to help 

clarify the confusion that currently 

exists relative to eartags being official. 

Standardization will support a more 

user-friendly system and help increase 

the level of compliance. We believe it is 

important to have a simple and 

standardized means of determining if a 

tag is official. The standardization of 

numbers also allows for automated error 

checking, resulting in greater data 

integrity in information systems. The 

addition of the definition of official 

eartag shield, discussed above, to the 

regulations allows the States and Tribes 

to imprint their postal abbreviations or 

alpha codes instead of ‘‘US’’ on the tag. 

States and Tribes will be able to 

administer their own official eartags, 

provided that those eartags adhere to 

our definition of official eartag. 

A commenter questioned how a 

producer or organization would request 

printed AIN tags for a location without 

a national premises identification 

number (PIN). The commenter 

recommended allowing AIN eartags to 

be ordered with a State location 

identifier in lieu of a national PIN. 

In this rulemaking, while continuing 

to allow for the use of the PIN, we also 

provide for the use of a location 

identification (LID) number, which we 

define as a nationally unique number 

issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal 

animal health authority to a location as 

determined by the State or Tribe in 

which it is issued. As noted in Section 

B of the Animal Disease Traceability 

General Standards document, producers 

may obtain AIN tags provided they have 

either a PIN or an LID. 

Some commenters recommended that 

we add language to the final rule to 

provide a method for the use of 

electronic identification of cattle that 

are currently located in the United 

States but that originated in another 

country. 

APHIS does recognize that limiting 

the use of 840 AINs to cattle born in the 

United States and the transition from 

accepting manufacturer-coded AINs as 

official will cause a void in the 

availability of official RFID tags for 

imported livestock. The use of the 

manufacturer-coded RFID AIN tags will 

provide an option for the identification 

of such cattle until the date such tags 

are no longer recognized as official at 

time of application. Consideration of a 

long-term solution to this issue is being 

given, and any resulting changes will be 

reflected in future updates of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards document. 

A commenter recommended that we 

require official 840 RFID tags for all 

female dairy cattle and those male dairy 

cattle used for reproductive purposes 

and that we require an official 840 

‘‘brite’’ or RFID tag for those male dairy 

cattle (bull calves) used for meat 

purposes, i.e., fed veal or dairy beef 

steers. 

In keeping with the vision for the 

animal disease traceability system set 

out by the Secretary on February 5, 

2010, we have elected not to specify 

which eartag is required for any sector 

of the cattle population, as it is our 

thinking that this decision is best made 

by the producers and animal owners. 

A commenter stated that we should 

not allow exemptions from official 

identification requirements for cattle 

and bison moving to approved livestock 

facilities, as he believed we did in the 

August 2011 proposed rule. The 

commenter stated that such facilities 

may be high-risk facilities due to the 

possibility of commingling of animals 

on the premises. 

In the proposed rule, we provided an 

exemption from the official 

identification requirements for cattle 

and bison moving interstate to an 

approved tagging site. This exemption 

was intended to allow producers to have 

their animals tagged at such a site when 

they were unable to tag the animals 

themselves. We did not propose to 

exempt cattle and bison moving 

interstate to an approved livestock 

facility from the official identification 

requirements. The exemption for 

movement to an approved livestock 

facility applies to the ICVI and was 

provided because livestock markets are 

the approved facilities where accredited 

veterinarians are typically available on 

sale days to conduct the necessary 

inspections and issue the ICVIs. 

Miscellaneous Cattle Identification 

Issues 

Under the August 2011 proposed rule, 

beef cattle under the age of 18 months 

did not have to be officially identified 

prior to interstate movement during the 

initial phase of the implementation 

process, but dairy cattle, regardless of 

age or sex or current use, were required 

to be officially identified. Some dairy 

producers stated that the age for 

requiring official identification prior to 

interstate movement should be the same 

for dairy and beef cattle. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

Dairy calves are raised much differently 

than calves in the beef sector, which 

typically stay with their dams until 

weaning. The significant movement of 

dairy calves and yearlings and their 

commingling with cattle from multiple 

dairies increases the risk of disease 

spread, justifying their inclusion in the 

current rulemaking. As we have already 

noted, we now intend to subject feeder 

cattle to the official identification 

requirements in a separate future 

rulemaking. 

A commenter requested clarification 

on whether steers of dairy origin would 

be exempted from identification 

requirements when this final rule 

became effective. 

Under the proposed rule, all dairy 

cattle were to be subject to the official 

identification requirements beginning 

on the effective date of this final rule. 

Upon further consideration, we have 

concluded that there would be minimal 

value in officially identifying for the 

first time older dairy steers that may 

have already moved interstate before the 

effective date of this final rule. While 

the identification of animals in the dairy 

sector is important, in particular at 

young ages, we have determined it to be 

appropriate, at this point, to apply the 

official identification requirements only 

to male dairy animals born after the 

effective date of this final rule. We have 

revised the provision pertaining to the 

official identification of dairy cattle for 

interstate movement to state that 

beginning on March 11, 2013, all dairy 

females, regardless of age, and all male 

dairy animals that are born after that 

date will be required to be officially 

identified prior to interstate movement. 

A commenter requested that we 

include third-party traceability 

programs, such as the above-mentioned 

AMS-recognized programs, currently 

used by numerous cattle producers to 

verify the age and source of livestock as 

an official identification method. 

The use of the official identification 

devices or methods allowed for cattle 

under these regulations can easily 

support such programs if the eartags 

used in the programs bear numbers that 

meet our definition of official 

identification number. The AMS 

programs referred to earlier require a 

unique number only within their 

certified programs, however. Since there 

are a number of other systems that 

verify processes, feeding claims, 

exports, quality system assessment, or 

product label claims, relying only on 

system-specific or proprietary numbers 

would cause problems in traceability 

systems that require nationally unique 

numbers. Therefore, we are not making 

any changes to the final rule in response 

to this comment. However, as noted 

earlier, APHIS will work with AMS to 

establish greater standardization, in 

particular for animal numbering 

systems, to ensure that identification 

methods meet the requirements 

necessary for both programs. 

A commenter stated that the cattle 

industry cannot afford to have 

individual tags read and that APHIS 

should allow tags or brands to be used 

to identify groups of cattle. 

These traceability regulations do 

allow for the use of group identification 

when the animals move through the 

preharvest production chain as one 

group. In such a situation, the group can 

be identified in its entirety. However, 

when individual animals are moved and 

commingled with cattle from other 

premises, the determination of which 

animal was at what location can no 

longer be achieved with a group 

identifier; therefore, we cannot allow for 

the broad use of group identification for 

cattle that the commenter recommends. 

APHIS does recognize the complexity of 

recording official identification numbers 

on the ICVI and has limited that 

requirement in this rulemaking to those 

cattle and bison that will be covered by 

the official identification requirements 

on the date when this final rule becomes 

effective. 

A commenter took the position that 

APHIS should allow one PIN to apply 

to all cattle at various ranches owned by 

a single operation. 

Location identifiers are administered 

by the States and Tribes. The use of one 

location identifier is often appropriate 

when cattle typically move among those 

locations. Allowing the use of a single 

location identifier to designate multiple 

premises or locations, however, can be 

problematic if there are large distances 

between the various locations. For 

example, consider an operation with a 

home location and one or more 

locations at various distances, one of 

which is 20 miles from the home 

premises. In this example, suppose that 

a disease is traced to the home farm and 

a 10-mile quarantine zone is placed 

around it. If at the time of quarantine, 

the animal health official is only aware 

of the location of the home premises 

(because all locations are reported as 

one), the operations outside the 10-mile 

zone would initially be left out of the 

investigation. As the investigation is 

further conducted, the quarantine zone 

will be extended, but having knowledge 

of those additional locations early on 

helps animal health officials quickly 

determine the scope of the disease and 

reduces the time and expense of the 

investigation. Since States and Tribes 

administer location identifiers, it is their 

prerogative to determine how to issue 

them in such situations. 

It was suggested by a commenter that 

APHIS should require the approval of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2053 

both the sending and receiving States or 

Tribes for use of group/lot identification 

with cattle. A location-based GIN would 

appear to be most useful in identifying 

calves from the ranch of origin to the 

backgrounding feedlot, according to the 

commenter. A location-based GIN, 

particularly when associated with a 

registered brand, would provide a level 

of traceability that is cost-effective for 

the producer, and would likely yield the 

level of granularity that animal health 

officials seek when conducting a disease 

traceback investigation. 

While State and Tribes have the 

option to agree on other methods of 

group/lot identification, for such 

identification to be recognized under 

these regulations as official, the animals 

in a shipment must meet our criteria for 

recognition as a group or lot, i.e., they 

must be of the same species and must 

comprise a ‘‘unit’’ that is managed as 

one group throughout the preharvest 

production chain. In such a situation, 

the entire group of animals is being 

traced, and one number for the entire 

group is very adequate for traceability. 

It is the view of APHIS that these 

criteria for a group or lot of animals 

should be uniformly applied, so that, 

while States and Tribes may agree on 

alternative forms of group/lot 

identification, if they do not agree, a 

receiving State or Tribe will not be 

required to accept shipments of animals 

that do not meet the criteria. 

Some commenters stated that what 

they termed ‘‘event cattle,’’ meaning 

cattle that may be used for a single 

event, are not a high-risk group like 

rodeo cattle and, therefore, should not 

be grouped with the classes of cattle and 

bison subject to the official 

identification requirements on that date 

that this final rule becomes effective. It 

was further suggested that event cattle 

should not have to be individually 

identified and, even if they were, that 

their identification numbers should not 

have to be recorded on an ICVI. 

We do not agree with these 

comments. The commingling of cattle 

with rodeo stock, even for a short period 

of time, increases the risk of disease 

exposure. Additionally, due to the 

frequent movement of such animals, the 

documentation of individual animal 

numbers is important. 

It was suggested that when commuter 

herds are approved for movement of 

animals between States or Tribes 

without meeting the requirements of the 

proposed regulations, language should 

be added indicating that if any of these 

animals are shipped to a different State 

not included in the commuter herd 

agreement, then these animals must be 

officially identified and documented to 

the original State of origin. 

We agree with this comment and are 

incorporating it into § 86.4(b)(1)(i)(A) in 

this final rule. 

Official Identification Requirements for 

Poultry 

Many commenters opposed our 

proposed poultry identification 

requirements. It was stated that the 

proposed regulations would allow 

vertically integrated operations to use 

group identification for thousands of 

birds, while mandating individually 

numbered leg bands for any bird that 

crosses State lines and is not kept in an 

isolated group ‘‘throughout the 

preharvest chain.’’ Such leg bands are 

impractical, according to the 

commenters, and requiring them could 

be devastating for many pastured 

poultry and backyard poultry owners. It 

was also maintained that since many 

pastured poultry operations and 

backyard poultry owners order day-old 

chicks from hatcheries scattered around 

the country, the proposed regulations 

would apply to many people who never 

take their birds across State lines after 

that first shipment. 

We have reviewed these comments 

and are revising this final rule to take 

into account the situation of poultry 

growers that are not part of the National 

Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) but 

that receive chicks from a hatchery and/ 

or re-distributor (feed store, etc.). 

Poultry belonging to such growers will 

be exempted from the official 

identification requirements under this 

final rule, but we will require that the 

persons responsible for the animals 

received from the hatchery and/or 

redistributor maintain a record of where 

they obtained the birds. Redistributors 

will be required to maintain a record of 

where they received chicks and which 

growers received the birds. Most 

growers already retain these records, so 

the recordkeeping requirement should 

not cause an additional burden. 

It was suggested by some commenters 

that we substitute for the proposed 

poultry identification provisions a 

statement that interstate movement of 

poultry would be governed by the NPIP. 

The existing NPIP program has worked 

well, according to the commenters, and 

there is no reason to add new, onerous 

tagging requirements. 

While the voluntary NPIP meets our 

traceability requirements and has 

worked well for those States that require 

it, we acknowledge that not all poultry 

growers and sectors of the industry 

participate in NPIP. We believe it is 

important to maintain poultry, a major 

commodity group, as a covered species 

in these regulations and have done so. 

We continue to maintain reference to 

NPIP, but as noted above, we are 

amending this final rule to address the 

primary concerns raised by the 

‘‘backyard’’ poultry growers. 

Some commenters also stated that 

existing poultry numbering systems 

have been working well and should be 

recognized in this rulemaking as group 

or flock identifiers. 

This final rule establishes a standard 

for identifying groups or flocks of 

poultry by means of the GIN. Shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes may also 

agree, however, to recognize alternate 

methods of identification in lieu of 

official identification for animals moved 

from the shipping State or Tribe into the 

receiving one, thus allowing for the use 

of other numbering systems that have 

been working effectively as group or 

flock identifiers. 

Commenters representing the poultry 

industry also stated that requiring 

identification of chickens moved to a 

custom slaughter facility would cause a 

significant and unwarranted economic 

burden for producers. 

In the proposed rule, we did exempt 

from the requirements of these 

regulations any covered livestock 

moving interstate to a custom slaughter 

facility in accordance with Federal and 

State regulations for preparation of meat 

for personal consumption. To alleviate 

concerns expressed by the commenters, 

we are clarifying the intent of the 

exemption in this final rule by removing 

the phrase ‘‘for personal consumption.’’ 

Therefore, under § 86.2(e)(2) of this final 

rule, all livestock moved to a custom 

slaughter facility will be exempted from 

the traceability regulations. 

Some commenters suggested that 

commuter herd provisions, which 

exempt cattle and bison meeting the 

commuter herd requirements from 

official identification requirements, 

should be extended to include 

commercial poultry flocks as well. One 

of the commenters stated that the 

commercial broiler industry should be 

allowed to form agreements with States 

to ensure traceability. 

Our commuter herd provisions were 

intended to address a specific need in 

the cattle industry, where cattle move 

across State lines under retained 

ownership for grazing purposes. 

What the commenter is asking for 

more closely resembles the provisions 

in 9 CFR 71.19 that provide for the 

movement of swine within a production 

system. We do not believe that changes 

are necessary in this final rule in regards 

to expanding the concept of commuter 

herds to the commercial poultry 

industry, as the NPIP guidelines, which 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2054 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

are well-established in the commercial 

poultry industry, have provided very 

good traceability solutions. 

Additionally, the proposed rule did 

provide for States and Tribes to use 

other methods of identification and 

movement documentation for poultry. 

That is still the case under this final 

rule; thus, States and Tribes may enter 

into agreements with the commercial 

broiler industry, as suggested by the 

commenter. 

Official Identification Requirements for 

Equines 

Many commenters stated that a 

physical description of the animal 

should qualify as official identification 

for equines without that description 

having to be approved by an official of 

the receiving State or Tribe, as provided 

for in the proposed rule. 

That proposed requirement was 

intended to apply only to those 

situations where the person examining 

the equine’s identity had questions 

regarding the description provided. 

Where such uncertainty existed, an 

animal health official in the receiving 

State or Tribe was to determine if the 

description was sufficient or not. In this 

final rule, § 86.4(a)(2) has been revised 

to provide, as an option, that the animal 

health official at the destination may 

make the determination when called 

upon, but the use of the animal health 

official is not required. For example, the 

accredited veterinarian or authority at 

an equine exhibition may elect to make 

the determination of the equine’s 

identity without review by the animal 

health official. 

A commenter suggested that we 

should provide for additional 

identification methods for equines, such 

as existing microchips and biometric 

measurements. 

These traceability regulations do 

provide for various methods of 

identification, including physical 

descriptions, electronic identification, 

digital photographs or other methods 

agreed to by the shipping and receiving 

States or Tribes. Most of these methods 

are already in use, though biometrics is 

relatively new. Adding a second 

microchip that is ISO compliant to an 

equine that already has an existing nonISO injectable transponder is not 

practical. We are, however, amending 

§ 86.4(a)(2) of this final rule to add an 

option to recognize the non-ISO 

transponders as official for those 

applied to the equine on or prior to 

March 11, 2014. We are also adding a 

reference to biometric measurements as 

official identification. 

Additionally, in response to other 

commenters who viewed our proposed 

equine official identification 

requirements as burdensome, we are 

adding some exemptions from the 

official identification requirements. 

Most of these parallel the exemptions 

allowed for cattle and bison. One, 

however, reflects the unique nature of 

equines. Equines moving interstate 

would be exempted from the official 

identification requirements if used as a 

mode of transportation, e.g., for riding 

or to pull a buggy, provided they then 

return to the original location. These 

exemptions will also be added to the 

ICVI requirements for equines in 

§ 86.5(f). 

A commenter questioned the need for 

imposing additional identification and 

veterinary inspection requirements for 

equines when current requirements for 

Coggins tests are being met. 

Horse owners who are meeting 

vaccination and Coggins-test 

requirements would likely satisfy the 

requirements for official identification 

and documentation of equines under 

these regulations. Documentation 

completed in accordance with the 

equine infectious anemia (EIA) 

requirements in 9 CFR part 75 may be 

used in lieu of ICVIs. Identification 

previously used on EIA test reports may 

be accepted by the animal health official 

in the receiving State or Tribe. 

Official Identification Requirements for 

Swine 

Some commenters representing the 

swine industry expressed concern that 

allowing for the use of LIDs in lieu of 

PINs defeats the purpose of a single 

nationally standardized number and 

may lead to unnecessary confusion and 

difficulties in implementation. The 

commenters state that the PIN has 

become the preferred location identifier 

for the pork industry, with more than 95 

percent of swine premises having 

registered with the standard PIN to date. 

Members of the industry strongly 

supported our maintaining the National 

Premises Allocator, National Premises 

Information Repository, and the data 

elements that are currently included in 

the repository. One comment from a 

pork producer stated that the use of the 

PIN should be mandatory on tags 

applied to sows going to cull markets. 

This rulemaking does not disallow the 

use of a PIN, nor does it prohibit an 

industry from adopting it as a standard. 

We are simply providing additional 

flexibility for States or Tribes that offer 

an acceptable alternative means of 

identifying locations where livestock are 

raised. 

Commenters representing the pork 

industry also expressed concern about 

our modifying some current definitions 

in the CFR by removing the data 

standards for GINs and PINs and 

defining them in the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

document. The commenters stated that 

while the proposed changes would 

allow for flexibility in defining various 

location identifiers and for the use of 

the LID as a component of a GIN, they 

will lead to unnecessary confusion. To 

avoid that confusion, these industry 

commenters requested that APHIS 

recognize the data standards defined in 

§ 71.1 for the PIN and GIN as the official 

data standards for the pork industry. 

We do not agree that it is the role of 

APHIS to establish industry standards; 

rather, it is to set minimum standards 

for States and Tribes that provide 

flexibility at the local level. If an 

industry chooses to adopt a specific 

standard, that is its prerogative as long 

as the standard meets the minimum 

guidelines of these regulations or is 

agreed to by animal health officials 

involved in the interstate movement. 

Pork industry commenters further 

stated that, to avoid any possible 

conflicts that might arise between the 

requirements set out in this rulemaking 

and the currently applicable sections of 

the regulations that deal with the 

identification of swine in interstate 

commerce, veterinary inspection, and 

issuance of ICVI’s, APHIS should clearly 

indicate in this final rule that the 

requirements of § 71.19 are the ones that 

govern the interstate movement of 

swine. 

We agree with this comment. The 

August 2011 proposed rule did, in fact, 

state that swine moving interstate were 

subject to the requirements of § 71.19, 

and this final rule does so as well. 

Official Identification Requirements for 

Captive Cervids 

A commenter stressed the importance 

of flexibility in identification 

requirements for cervids. It was stated 

that such identification methods as 

brands, tattoos, and microchips, may be 

more appropriate than eartags for some 

markets within the cervid industry. 

This rulemaking does not change the 

requirements for official identification 

of captive cervids, which are currently 

contained in 9 CFR part 77. Those 

existing regulations provide for various 

official identification methods, 

including tattoos and electronic 

implants. 

Official Identification Requirements for 

Sheep and Goats 

A commenter representing sheep and 

goat producers stated that, if in the 

future, APHIS should determine that 

identification for sheep is needed 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2055 

beyond what is currently required for 

the scrapie program, then group 

identification should be allowed. 

Group/lot identification is allowed 

under this rulemaking. Group/lot 

identification is not species-specific and 

will be available as an option for sheep 

and goat producers, as well as other 

livestock producers. 

Miscellaneous Identification Issues 

A commenter questioned how the LID 

is different from the PIN and stated that 

having two different numbering systems 

for the identification or premises may be 

unnecessarily complex and expensive. 

The option of allowing a State or 

Tribe to issue a location identifier 

resulted from the strong negative 

feedback we received from livestock 

owners opposed to the premises 

registration component of the NAIS. 

While having location information on 

where livestock are raised is critical to 

traceability, it is recognized that States 

may have their own systems to maintain 

information on such locations. The LID 

option was established to provide that 

flexibility. Data standards for both LIDs 

and PINs are contained in the Animal 

Disease Traceability General Standards 

document. 

A commenter questioned why the 

proposed regulations allowed the use of 

other identification methods and 

devices, if agreed to by the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes, in lieu of the 

official identification devices for the 

various species of covered livestock. In 

the commenter’s view, allowing the use 

of other identification devices would 

result in a lack of standardization of 

official identification devices and would 

be detrimental to traceability. 

These traceability regulations list 

official identification devices and 

methods for each species of covered 

livestock. The diversification of animal 

agriculture across the United States is 

tremendous, and, taking into account all 

the feedback we received over the last 

few years, we recognized that ‘‘one size 

does not fit all.’’ Thus we designed 

these regulations to support the efforts 

of States and Tribes to work with 

producers at the local level to 

implement traceability solutions that 

work best for all concerned. 

A commenter stated that allowing 

group/lot identification of animals 

managed together as one group through 

the production chain would give a 

competitive advantage to vertically 

integrated operations over smaller 

producers. 

The group/lot identification option is 

based on the need to have adequate 

information available to State, Tribal, 

and Federal animal health officials to 

conduct traceback investigations. 

Requiring there to be individual 

identification on each animal that 

moved through the preharvest 

production chain would not improve 

the traceability of those animals. Thus, 

group/lot identification is a justified 

option in those situations, regardless of 

the size of the group. 

A commenter stated that there should 

be a uniform requirement, with no 

exemptions, that all livestock in 

interstate commerce be individually 

officially identified before moving 

interstate, as is now the case with 

horses, according to the commenter. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

We recognize that there are 

circumstances where official 

identification and/or ICVIs for interstate 

movement of animals are not warranted 

from a disease-risk perspective or that 

the traceability of animals moving 

interstate may be possible without 

requiring official identification of 

individual animals. For example, 

livestock moved interstate to a custom 

slaughter facility are already identified 

to the person responsible for bringing 

the animal to the facility. An official 

eartag would not make the animal more 

traceable; thus, we exempted such 

livestock from the traceability 

requirements. 

It was the view of some commenters 

that we should allow States and Tribes 

to choose the identification methods 

that work best for them and to select the 

level of traceability that works best for 

them, based on their needs and 

infrastructure constraints. 

State and Tribes may use the forms of 

identification they prefer in lieu of 

official identification when the 

receiving States or Tribes agree to accept 

that method of identification for animals 

moving into its jurisdiction. Likewise, 

the level of traceability States or Tribes 

establish within their jurisdictions is at 

their discretion. 

Documentation Requirements 

Documentation requirements, which 

were contained in § 90.5 of the August 

2011 proposed rule, are contained in 

§ 86.5 of this final rule. 

Many cattle organizations 

recommended that a fully electronic 

ICVI system be in place in all the States 

and Tribes as a prerequisite to 

expanding the official identification 

requirements to include cattle and bison 

exempted in this rulemaking. 

The conditions for initiating a second 

rulemaking to cover those additional 

classes of cattle and bison have yet to 

be determined. The merits of electronic 

ICVIs are fully recognized by APHIS, 

and we believe their adoption is 

important to increase administrative 

efficiencies and to support timely 

traceability. APHIS provides an 

electronic ICVI system that all States 

and Tribes may utilize and supports 

options for third-party developed and 

supported systems. We have established 

data standards that third-party system 

providers need to incorporate so that 

their systems and ours will be 

compatible. 

Some commenters took the argument 

further, stating that paper copies of 

ICVIs are not needed at all and that 

electronic copies are not only sufficient 

for traceability needs but should be 

required. It was also stated that the 

regulations need to allow for the use of 

electronic ICVI addenda. 

We agree that electronic ICVIs have 

inherent benefits in terms of data 

retrieval, readability, and ease of 

execution, but disagree that paper ICVIs 

have no place in our traceability 

program. Although all States currently 

have the electronic ICVIs available for 

use, full implementation by the majority 

of accredited veterinarians will take 

time. We have areas of the country 

where electronic issuance of certificates 

that are Web-based is not possible at the 

locations where they are needed. While 

moving to increased use of electronic 

ICVIs is important, paper-based ICVIs 

will have a role in the foreseeable 

future. Additionally, even as the use of 

electronic ICVI systems become more 

widespread, it will still be necessary for 

enforcement purposes for the printouts 

of such certificates to accompany the 

livestock in transit. 

Some commenters stated that the 

proposed ICVI requirements would be 

burdensome for producers. Because 

there are not enough veterinarians 

available in all States to conduct the 

necessary inspections on animals 

preparing to move interstate, having to 

obtain an ICVI would require some 

producers to pen their calves longer to 

arrange for those inspections. The result 

would be greater stress on the animals 

and reduced profits for the producers. 

We acknowledge that there may be 

situations where the issuance of an ICVI 

is an economic burden. For that reason, 

we allow States or Tribes to issue 

alternative movement documentation in 

lieu of ICVIs when agreed to by the 

States or Tribes involved in the 

interstate movement. In this final rule, 

we are extending this exemption to 

include breeding cattle over 18 months 

of age, which would have been required 

to be accompanied by an ICVI under the 

proposed rule. 

A number of commenters viewed the 

proposed requirement for the recording 

of individual identification numbers on 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2056 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the ICVI as burdensome to producers 

and market operators, stating that the 

benefits of such recording would not 

outweigh the costs. It was suggested that 

State officials should be allowed to 

waive the recording of individual 

identification numbers on ICVIs. 

An ICVI is a certification that a 

veterinarian has inspected specific 

animals. The requirement for recording 

the animals’ identification numbers on 

the ICVI ensures that the inspections 

have actually taken place for those 

specific animals. State and Tribal 

animal health officials use the ICVIs to 

help in animal disease investigations. If 

the animals’ identification numbers are 

not listed on the ICVI, it is more 

difficult to determine which animals 

were moved. To limit any possible 

burdens resulting from the recording 

requirements, the only animals we 

require to be listed on the ICVI are those 

we have determined to be associated 

with a higher risk of disease spread. 

Some commenters stated that we 

should allow for the stapling of a 

printed list of RFID tag numbers to a 

paper ICVI rather than requiring the 

writing down of the numbers on the 

ICVI itself. 

We agree with this comment and are 

amending the ICVI definition in this 

final rule to allow for State-approved 

addenda that would include an option 

for an attached printout of official 

identification numbers generated by 

computer or other means. The amended 

definition will also note, however, that 

such addenda or attachments may only 

be used if agreed to by the receiving 

State or Tribe. 

Some commenters took the opposite 

view, stating that when official 

identification is required, the 

identification numbers should always 

be recorded on the ICVI. Attaching 

another sheet of paper to the ICVI was 

not seen as adequate because that other 

sheet seldom accompanies the ICVI to 

the State of destination. 

While this final rule will allow for the 

use of attachments to the ICVI, as noted 

above, States and Tribes are not 

required to accept them if they do not 

view that method of recording official 

identification numbers as sufficient to 

meet their traceability needs. 

Some commenters stated that we 

should allow for greater flexibility than 

we originally proposed in the use of 

alternative, State-approved methods of 

ICVI addenda. It was stated that we 

should allow for the listing of a series 

or range of numbers included in a 

shipment rather than the exact 

identification tag numbers for each 

animal in the shipment. 

The ability to find individual animals 

quickly and determine what other 

animals they had contact with is key to 

effective epidemiological investigations. 

If ICVIs did not have individual 

identification numbers listed for the 

animals in a shipment, the ability of 

State, Tribal, and Federal animal health 

officials to conduct traceback 

investigations on those animals would 

be hampered. Alternative methods can 

only be used if States or Tribes involved 

in the interstate movement have agreed 

to them. 

Some commenters stated that to avoid 

placing undue burdens on small 

entities, there should be a farm, 

business, or herd size threshold for 

exemption from the ICVI requirement. 

Traceability is more related to the 

number of animals that move interstate 

than it is to herd size. Regardless of size, 

herds that do not move animals 

interstate are exempt. Furthermore, 

APHIS has no intent to monitor the size 

of herds, require the reporting of 

inventory, or conduct any activity along 

those lines that would be necessary to 

establish herd size exemptions. 

A commenter stated that there is no 

need to require an ICVI for equines 

moving interstate because the 

movement documents already required 

for equine species are adequate for 

traceback purposes. 

We will not be making any changes to 

the final rule in response to this 

comment. It is true that most States 

already have movement requirements 

for equines. This rulemaking helps to 

make existing requirements more 

uniform throughout the nation. The EIA 

test chart, commonly required for 

interstate movement, certifies that a 

horse is not infected with the disease, 

but does not document the origin and 

destination of an interstate movement. 

The ICVI, issued by a veterinarian, does 

provide the ship-from and ship-to 

locations. These regulations also 

provide that States and Tribes may use 

other methods of movement 

documentation, which may include an 

EIA test chart, when agreed upon by the 

animal health officials in the States or 

Tribes involved in the interstate 

movement. 

Some commenters stated that an 

exemption from the ICVI requirements 

in the proposed rule for cattle and bison 

moving interstate to a veterinary clinic 

and then returning to their farm of 

origin without a change in ownership 

should be also be allowed for equines 

and other species as well. 

We acknowledge the support for the 

exemption, which was included in the 

proposed rule for poultry as well as for 

cattle and bison. In this final rule, we 

are adding the same exemption for 

equines. 

Under the proposed rule, individual 

identification numbers of cattle and 

bison moving interstate were required to 

be recorded on the ICVI with certain 

exceptions. Exempted categories were 

sexually intact cattle and bison under 18 

months of age or steers or spayed 

heifers, excluding sexually intact dairy 

cattle of any age or cattle or bison used 

for rodeos, exhibitions, or recreational 

purposes. Many cattle organizations 

strongly supported maintaining those 

exemptions from the ICVI recording 

requirements rather than phasing them 

out, as they claimed we proposed to do. 

We agree with these comments. The 

proposed rule did not in fact contain 

language suggesting that we intended to 

phase out these exemptions. 

Many commenters stated that we 

should allow the use of other movement 

documents in lieu of the ICVI for all 

ages of cattle and bison when the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

agree. The potential burden to 

producers of the ICVI requirement, 

resulting from a decline in the 

availability of veterinary coverage 

around the country, was cited as a 

reason for this recommended change 

from the proposed rule, which only 

allowed such an exemption for cattle 

and bison under 18 months of age. 

We agree with the commenters on the 

need for flexibility and alternatives in 

areas of the country where obtaining an 

ICVI would impose an economic 

hardship on producers. We are, 

therefore, amending § 86.5(c)(6) in this 

final rule to allow for the use of 

alternative movement documentation 

for all ages of cattle and bison when 

agreed to by the animal health officials 

in the shipping and receiving States or 

Tribes. 

It was recommended that the ICVI 

exemption contained in the proposed 

rule for poultry moved directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment 

should be expanded to cover poultry 

moved directly to rendering 

establishments as well. 

We agree that the exemption is 

appropriate for poultry moving directly 

to either destination and are amending 

§ 86.5(g)(2) of this final rule accordingly. 

While we received many comments 

recommending exemptions to the ICVI 

requirements, we also received one 

stating that we should allow no 

exemptions and no use of alternative 

forms of documentation. The ICVI, the 

commenter stated, should be used for all 

interstate movements because standard 

documentation is necessary for an 

effective traceability program. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2057 

We do not agree with this comment. 

Due to the lack of large-animal 

veterinarians in some areas of the 

country, allowing only the ICVI to be 

used for interstate movement could 

result in significant economic hardship 

for some producers. We view a more 

flexible approach, one which allows the 

use of alternative movement 

documentation when agreed to by the 

animal health officials in the shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes, as more 

effective and less burdensome. 

Some commenters stated that we 

should allow an ICVI to be valid for a 

period of time, e.g., 30 days, for brief 

and frequent out-of-State movements 

not involving a change of ownership of 

the livestock. One commenter 

recommended issuing an alternative 

document called an ‘‘event passport’’ for 

equines for this purpose. It was stated 

that allowing an ICVI to be valid for a 

period of time would alleviate burdens 

on livestock owners and veterinarians. 

We realize that there are many ways 

in which livestock move interstate. 

These include movements in which 

animals return to their original location 

and, in some cases, move again a few 

days later to another location. While a 

new ICVI for each movement would aid 

in traceability, we realize that in some 

situations, other options are more 

practical for both the animal owner and 

accredited veterinarian. However, to 

account specifically for each variable in 

the regulation would likely create 

significant confusion. The rule, as 

proposed, provided the local officials 

with the authority to utilize other 

movement documents when agreed to at 

the local level by the State and Tribes 

involved. While not specifically 

referenced, such documents could 

include an event passport. We have 

maintained these options in the final 

rule to support the use of other 

movement documentation as agreed to 

by the involved State or Tribe animal 

health officials. Yet, we do believe that 

a standard and uniform definition for 

the ICVI and standard and uniform 

requirements for its administration are 

critical, and we have maintained those 

as proposed. 

It was stated by a commenter 

representing a swine industry 

association that the ICVI requirements 

contained in the proposed rule included 

some data not currently required for 

swine and could cause some confusion 

regarding issuance. Specifically, the 

commenter questioned why it was 

necessary for an accredited veterinarian 

to indicate on the ICVI the purpose for 

which the animals are being moved 

interstate. 

As we explained in the preamble to 

the August 2011 proposed rule, the 

information requirements for the ICVI 

were closely modeled on the 

requirements for certificates in the 

brucellosis regulations. The requirement 

for the accredited veterinarian to state 

the purpose of the interstate movement 

is to differentiate between temporary 

movements (shows, exhibitions, etc.) 

and permanent movements (sales, 

retained ownership, etc.). On many 

existing State-issued ICVIs, there is a 

box that can be checked indicating the 

purpose of the movement. In any event, 

the establishment of these traceability 

regulations does not affect the 

documentation requirements for the 

interstate movement of swine, which 

will continue to be governed by § 71.19. 

A commenter representing the swine 

industry stated that while swine moved 

directly to slaughter are not currently 

required to have an ICVI, under the 

proposed rule, the requirements would 

become more stringent, since only 

animals moved to custom slaughter 

would be exempt. The commenter 

requested that, in the final rule, we 

reference exemptions for ICVIs for 

swine going into official slaughter 

channels. 

This rulemaking does not alter the 

documentation requirements for swine 

moving interstate for slaughter or other 

purposes. Such swine will continue to 

be subject to the documentation 

requirements of § 71.19. Swine that are 

not moving within a swine production 

system and that are covered by the 

pseudorabies regulations in part 85 will 

continue to be subject to the 

documentation requirements of that 

part. 

It was stated by commenters that we 

needed to be clearer regarding the 

location at which the ICVI must be 

issued and when the 5-day period for 

forwarding the ICVI begins. 

The ICVI is required to show the 

address at which the animals in a 

shipment are loaded for interstate 

movement. As we noted earlier, 

however, we are amending this final 

rule to clarify that veterinary inspection 

of the animals and issuance of the ICVI 

do not have to be done at that address. 

The inspection may take place at an 

alternate site, such as a veterinary 

clinic, and the actual completion of the 

ICVI may take place at another location, 

such as the office of the issuing 

veterinarian. To clarify the forwarding 

requirements, we are also amending 

§ 86.5(b) of this final rule to specify that 

the ICVI or other document 

accompanying the covered livestock 

must be forwarded by the person issuing 

it to the State or Tribal animal health 

official in State or Tribe of origin within 

7 calendar days from the date of 

issuance and that that official must then 

forward it to the State or Tribe of 

destination within 7 calendar days of 

having received it. 

Additionally, to close a potential gap 

in the movement recordkeeping 

requirements, we are adding a new 

86.5(b)(2) to this final rule stating that 

an animal health official or accredited 

veterinarian who issues or receives an 

ICVI or other interstate movement 

document in accordance with the 

paragraph above must retain a copy of 

the ICVI or other document. The 

timeframes are the same as those for 

approved livestock facilities: Such 

documents must be retained for 2 years 

for poultry and swine and 5 years for 

cattle and bison, equines, cervids, and 

sheep and goats. 

A commenter expressed concern 

about the provision in the proposed rule 

that stated that the person directly 

responsible for animals leaving a 

premises would be responsible for 

ensuring that the animals are 

accompanied by the ICVI or other 

interstate movement document. The 

commenter indicated that it is common 

in the pork industry for the production 

system veterinarian to be the person 

responsible for writing the ICVI or other 

documents used for interstate 

movements. It is also common for 

movements to be arranged by a 

designated person in the production 

system. In the view of the commenter, 

we needed to better define or explain 

what we meant by ‘‘directly 

responsible.’’ 

It is not our intention to single out the 

accredited veterinarian or any other 

individual as being the primary 

responsible party in all cases. To avoid 

this, and to eliminate any possible 

ambiguity, we are revising the language 

of this provision slightly. Specifically, 

we are inserting, in § 86.5(a) of this final 

rule, the words ‘‘the persons 

responsible’’ in place of ‘‘the person 

directly responsible.’’ 

Some commenters stated that we 

should include fitness-to-travel 

requirements in the ICVI process and 

should require ICVIs to show the 

estimated travel times and stops. It was 

further stated that the ICVI should 

include a certification of intent to 

comply with the 28-hour law, which 

states that animals should not be driven 

for more than 28 hours without food or 

rest. 

Although these comments may have 

merit, the suggested requirements are 

beyond the scope of this rule, which is 

designed to improve animal disease 

traceability, and of our statutory 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2058 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

authority under the Animal Health 

Protection Act. 

A few commenters expressed the 

view, contrary to that of most, that there 

is no justification for the exemption 

from ICVI requirements of direct-toslaughter cattle. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

Cattle, upon arrival at a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, are 

inspected ante mortem and throughout 

the slaughtering process under the 

veterinary supervision of FSIS or State 

employees. When animals are shipped 

directly to slaughter, the location the 

animals were shipped from is known, 

and if there is any disease found at 

slaughter, it can easily be traced to that 

location. A requirement to have a 

veterinarian come to a farm to issue an 

ICVI for animals that are destined for 

immediate slaughter is unwarranted. 

Finally, a commenter stated that we 

should allow for greater flexibility in 

documentation by allowing inventory 

verification by a third party or at a 

shipment’s destination rather than only 

its origin. 

We disagree with this comment. 

Movement documentation is an 

essential part of our animal disease 

tracing capability. Allowing animals to 

move without documentation and 

relying instead on the destination to 

verify the identity of animals, would 

require a complex and expensive system 

of reporting and compliance. Although 

we are aware that at certain times of the 

year, handling of animals can be 

difficult, with added risk to animal 

health, there are management 

techniques and procedures that can 

minimize the time required to identify 

animals and reduce the strain of 

preparing them for interstate movement. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Costs 

It was claimed by some commenters 

that the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 

we published in conjunction with the 

August 2011 proposed rule grossly 

underestimated the economic cost to be 

borne by U.S. cattle producers. Some 

commenters expressed the view that we 

did not properly account for the cost of 

expanding the official identification 

requirements to cover feeder cattle. 

In the RIA, we attempted to estimate 

the new costs that will be associated 

with the provisions of the rulemaking. 

We acknowledged the significant 

portion of the cattle industry that 

already uses some method of 

identification, as reported in the 

National Animal Health Monitoring 

System 2007 and 2008 surveys. In the 

RIA, we noted that two-thirds of the 

beef operations and 90 percent of dairy 

operations use some method of 

identification. Additionally, within beef 

operations, over 60 percent of the calves 

had some form of individual 

identification. Consideration of these 

existing practices is important when 

estimating new costs that may be 

attributed to the new traceability 

requirements, as we believe that official 

eartags, in many cases, will likely be 

applied at the same time at which cattle 

are already being tagged or worked 

through chutes for other management 

purposes. Additionally, with an array of 

official eartags, producers may choose a 

single eartag that meets both 

management and official identification 

needs. This option would make the 

additional cost of official eartags quite 

small. Likewise, we believe that 

producers will continue to develop 

tagging practices that minimize the cost 

of applying official eartags. Producers 

that are not able to tag their own cattle 

may find a tagging site to be the most 

practical option for meeting the official 

identification requirements. We believe 

that the RIA accurately identified 

tagging costs that may occur at tagging 

sites. We acknowledge that our 

estimates for the number of animals 

moved interstate that would require 

official identification is based on several 

assumptions and that the estimation of 

costs involves many variables. The 

range of $12.5 million to $30.5 million 

annually for official identification costs 

to producers resulting from this 

rulemaking is our best estimate at this 

time. 

Regarding ICVI costs, we noted that 

most States already require ICVIs for 

many interstate movements. Thus, we 

do not believe the overall volume of 

ICVIs issued will increase significantly 

as a result of this rule. In this final rule, 

the exemption that allowed other 

documentation to be used in lieu of an 

ICVI, provided that the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes agreed, for 

cattle and bison under 18 months of age 

moving interstate has been extended to 

cover all ages and classes of cattle and 

bison. This revision will likely make the 

potential increase in the volume of 

ICVIs issued less than originally 

anticipated. 

One commenter, citing a study on the 

cost of tagging, asserted that the likely 

cost of the proposed rule to producers 

would range from $1.2 billion to $1.9 

billion. 

The commenter cited testimony 

before the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (ITC). We believe that the 

costs described in that testimony 

included activities not associated with 

the provisions of the proposed rule. The 

estimated costs per calf cited in the U.S. 

ITC testimony included $5 for tags, data 

management, and verification; $7 for 

working calves, tag placement, and 

documentation; and $8 for feedlot and 

harvest data collection and chute fees. 

The U.S. ITC testimony cited estimated 

losses due to shrinkage as $10 to $20 in 

lost income potential per calf. The U.S. 

ITC testimony was also based on an 

electronic animal identification system 

involving data management and 

verification activities at the producer 

level. 

We are not disputing the cost factors 

for the practices referenced in the U.S. 

ITC report. However, we do not believe 

they reflect management practices 

necessary for producers to comply with 

the identification requirements of the 

traceability rule and, therefore, do not 

believe those cost factors are applicable 

in our economic analysis. 

Commenters stated that we ignored 

the cost to distribute official 

identification devices and collect and 

maintain data on people receiving them 

and animals moved with them. It was 

stated that we also ignored the costs of 

official tags bearing the required 

emblem, the costs of replacing existing 

tag systems with official tags, the costs 

of equipment to read the tags, the costs 

of configuring corrals and handling 

facilities to allow for collection of 

identification information, and the costs 

associated with technology problems 

when tags are not read. 

We included information in the RIA 

about the cost of the tags, the cost of the 

labor to work the cattle in chutes and 

apply the tags, and the cost of the ICVI 

when the official identification 

information is recorded. Since the U.S. 

Shield has been imprinted on the NUES 

tags obtained by APHIS for diseasecontrol programs for many years, we do 

not agree that the standardized use of 

the official eartag shield will increase 

the cost of official eartags. This 

rulemaking is designed to allow 

producers to use tags that do not require 

any electronic or special equipment to 

read the official eartags. 

As described in the RIA, States and 

Tribes would bear responsibility for the 

collection, maintenance, and retrieval of 

data on interstate livestock movements. 

Federal funding, as available, would be 

allocated to assist States and Tribes in 

meeting program goals. Additionally, 

APHIS continues to provide information 

systems that States and Tribes may elect 

to use at no charge. 

Some commenters stated that we 

underestimated the cost to producers of 

the rulemaking because we did not 

factor in the costs of buying chutes in 

calculating the costs of tagging. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2059 

As stated previously, in the RIA, we 

attempted to determine only the costs 

and benefits that were associated with 

the provisions of the proposed rule. 

While we included estimated costs for 

chute operations for tagging, we did not 

include the entire costs of buying or 

renting chutes because we were only 

trying to determine the costs associated 

with the rule. If an operation does not 

currently own equipment needed for 

tagging, such as chutes, we note that 

tagging may take place at an approved 

tagging site. We do realize that some 

operations may elect to purchase a 

chute that will allow them to tag their 

own animals. However, we do not 

believe the investment in the chute will 

be made solely for applying the official 

eartags to the operation’s cattle. Rather, 

the chute is likely to be used for many 

other management practices. Therefore, 

we believe that analyzing the cost of 

tagging animals at tagging sites provides 

a more reliable basis for a reasonable 

estimate of producer costs for tagging 

animals than would including the entire 

costs of buying or renting chutes in such 

an estimate. 

Commenters stated that we did not 

adequately account for the added costs 

to producers, sale barns, veterinarians, 

and veterinary clinics that would be 

associated with our proposed ICVI 

requirements. 

As mentioned previously, many 

States already require ICVIs for 

interstate movements of livestock 

covered in the traceability rule. 

Therefore, we do not believe the volume 

of ICVIs issued is likely to change 

significantly. We did, however attempt 

to account for an increase in these cost 

to producers, which was projected to be 

$2.0 million to $3.8 million. In this final 

rule, as we have already noted, the 

exemption allowing the use of other 

documentation in lieu of ICVIs has been 

extended to all ages and classes of cattle 

and bison when agreed to by the 

receiving and shipping States and 

Tribes, thus limiting the increase in the 

number of ICVIs issued. If sale barns 

and veterinarians are providing services 

associated with the rulemaking, we 

anticipate that they would charge an 

appropriate price for those services. 

Costs that could be incurred by 

producers as a result were estimated in 

the RIA. 

One commenter stated that our RIA 

grossly underestimated the costs of 

ICVIs for horse owners. Another stated 

that the increased costs for the ICVI 

would place a greater burden on the 

horse industry than on the cattle 

industry because horses move more 

regularly. 

The RIA included information about 

estimated costs for equines. We 

estimated the incremental cost of an 

ICVI for most horses moved interstate to 

range between $4.00 and $7.50, based 

on the cost of testing for EIA. We 

estimated that the total additional cost 

for the equine industry could range from 

$8.8 million to $16.5 million, given the 

current number of EIA tests per year. 

Many commenters expressed 

concerns about the potential economic 

burdens on small producers and 

livestock markets, arguing that the 

rulemaking favored larger, vertically 

integrated entities. 

While APHIS is sensitive to these 

concerns, many commenters did not 

provide specific information to support 

these claims or provide traceability 

solutions that would be more cost 

effective. While larger, vertically 

integrated entities may realize economic 

benefits from the size of their 

operations, those benefits result from 

market forces and are not due to specific 

provisions of this rulemaking. However, 

in this final rule, we did add 

exemptions in response to comments 

from small poultry producers for certain 

movements, so as not to put such 

producers at a disadvantage. In 

particular, we exempted from the 

official identification requirements 

chicks moving interstate from a 

hatchery to a poultry producer or 

redistributor. 

It was stated that the rulemaking 

would disadvantage U.S. producers 

because they would be required to meet 

our traceability requirements when 

moving cattle across State lines, while 

we would place no such requirement on 

foreign producers. 

The official identification and 

documentation requirements for 

imported livestock are well established 

through 9 CFR part 93 and are not 

affected by this rulemaking. The 

requirements in part 93 are at least 

equivalent to those specified in this 

rulemaking, so domestic producers will 

not be placed at a competitive 

disadvantage. 

It was stated that the proposed rule 

was unfair in that it would only regulate 

interstate movement. As a result, 

producers may choose to take cattle to 

in-State markets that are farther away, 

thus incurring increased transportation 

costs, in order to avoid the cost and 

burden of the proposed requirements. 

Producers and markets located in the 

interiors of States may be given an 

unfair competitive advantage by not 

having to comply. 

We realize there are many factors that 

producers will consider when marketing 

their animals. While the cost of 

officially identifying animals moved 

interstate to a market may be 

considered, there are many other 

economic factors associated with 

marketing decisions, including, but not 

limited to, transportation costs and the 

availability of local and out-of-State 

buyers. Therefore, we cannot conclude 

that this final rule favors livestock 

markets based on their geographic 

location or distance from State borders. 

Many commenters viewed the 

proposed traceability program as an 

unfunded mandate. For example, it was 

said that State agencies would have to 

build database storage, management, 

and retrieval systems, which could 

strain their budgets. It was suggested 

that we provide funds to help States 

modernize and upgrade their data 

systems and train people to use them. 

The RIA discussed the estimated 

Federal funding available to support 

animal disease traceability. A significant 

portion of the budgeted funds are 

targeted to field implementation. 

However, APHIS has taken the position 

that it will not fund the development of 

duplicative information systems, as 

such investments cannot be justified. 

Rather, APHIS will provide information 

systems that the States and Tribes may 

use at no charge. If a State or Tribe 

elects to develop its own system, 

however, it will have to cover the cost. 

Federal funds, however, may be used for 

the overall administration of the local 

traceability activities. 

It was stated that our proposed 

traceability system would enhance the 

bargaining power of packers at the 

expense of producers. 

The commenters who expressed this 

view did not describe how the proposed 

rule would alter the relative bargaining 

power of packers at the expense of 

producers, and we are unable to 

determine how this point is applicable 

to the rulemaking. 

Many commenters noted that our RIA 

did not include a cost analysis for 

poultry producers. 

The RIA noted that there would be no 

additional costs for poultry enterprises 

that participate in the NPIP. As noted 

earlier, a primary concern about the cost 

of identifying individual birds, in 

particular chicks shipped from 

hatcheries, has been accounted for in 

the exemption from the official 

identification requirements for such 

poultry shipments. Likewise, it has been 

clarified that interstate movements to a 

custom slaughter facility are exempt 

from these traceability regulations. 

Poultry moved interstate to live bird 

markets would need to have an ICVI or 

other documentation as agreed to by the 

States. States have the option of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2060 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

maintaining current requirements for 

movement documentation, in which 

case no additional costs will be 

incurred. 

Benefits 

It was stated by some commenters 

that the RIA indicated that the primary 

benefits of this rulemaking would be to 

minimize losses and enable the 

reestablishment of foreign and domestic 

markets. This rationale was questioned. 

A commenter requested more detailed 

information on tuberculosis traceouts in 

the last 5 years and how animal 

identification has contributed to 

successful or unsuccessful traceouts. 

The commenter also requested data on 

foreign market access lost due to 

tuberculosis and brucellosis. Some other 

commenters stated that the discussion 

of benefits focused too much on the 

benefits of exports. It was maintained 

that, while exporters would likely 

benefit from the proposed rule, the costs 

would mainly be borne by domestic 

producers and related businesses. 

The ability of U.S. producers to export 

affects all producers, even those who do 

not directly sell to an international 

market. Trade restrictions lead to 

products intended for the export market 

being diverted to the domestic market. 

An increase in the supply of a product 

that otherwise may have been exported 

on the domestic market may lead to 

lower prices in the short run. In the 

event that exports cannot be reestablished, the likely result is a smaller 

domestic herd. 

A commenter stated that since the 

potential cost-benefit ratio of the rule 

could not be determined, the costs 

should be borne by the Federal 

Government. 

The RIA provided our estimate of who 

would bear the costs and the amount of 

those costs. In cases where we cannot 

quantify benefits or costs, we have 

described those benefits and costs 

qualitatively. The benefits of an efficient 

system for tracing animal disease 

occurrences, as set forth in the proposed 

rule and in this document, would 

accrue directly to the livestock and meat 

industries and indirectly to other sectors 

of the economy. 

Performance Standards 

Many commenters stated that we 

should not finalize the proposed rule 

until the actual traceability performance 

standards that States and Tribes would 

have to meet are established through 

rulemaking. In a system that would be 

so dependent upon the performance 

levels achieved by the States and Tribes, 

the current lack of performance 

measures, it was suggested, could be a 

barrier to successful implementation. 

We do not agree with these 

comments, as we believe that it would 

be premature to enact traceability 

performance requirements in this 

rulemaking. As noted in the preamble to 

the August 2011 proposed rule, our 

current thinking is that we will measure 

the performance of States and Tribes by 

evaluating their ability to carry out, in 

a timely manner, certain activities that 

animal health officials would typically 

conduct during a trace investigation of 

covered livestock that have moved 

interstate. The establishment of actual 

traceability performance standards, 

however, can only be done following 

review and analysis of actual data 

compiled from animal movement 

records after these regulations have been 

implemented. Without such 

information, the establishment of 

performance standards would be too 

subjective. Therefore, we maintain our 

initial position: We will establish the 

traceability performance standards at a 

later date to ensure we have necessary 

data to objectively define and establish 

those performance standards. As the 

rule is implemented, we will continue 

to work with States and Tribes to 

measure tracing capabilities resulting 

from these regulations. Comparing the 

results obtained earlier on and over time 

will help document the progress being 

made. 

One commenter stated that the 

discussion of the performance standards 

in the preamble to the proposed rule did 

not adequately address possible 

consequences for States with 

traceability systems that do not meet our 

goals. Several others stated that it would 

be counterproductive to place 

additional restrictions on producers 

from States that do not comply with our 

traceability standards, as was discussed 

in the preamble. 

This rulemaking does not contain any 

traceability performance standards or 

provisions for additional restrictions 

based on non-compliance. The 

discussion in the preamble to the 

August 2011 proposed rule was 

presented as our ‘‘current thinking,’’ 

with the understanding that any 

performance and compliance measures 

will be developed with input from 

individuals and organizations that 

would be affected. We made it clear in 

that discussion that the performance 

measures will be developed in a 

separate rulemaking process. 

One commenter stated that the 

performance standards we ultimately 

implement should be more rigorous 

than the ones we discussed in the 

preamble to the proposed rule. 

Specifically, the commenter stated that 

3 years is too long a time to allow States 

to come into compliance with our 

requirements. 

As noted above, the discussion in the 

preamble to the proposed rule reflects 

our current thinking on performance 

standards. That thinking is likely to 

evolve as we accumulate more data after 

this final rule becomes effective. 

Preemption 

Provisions related to preemption of 

State and local requirements, which 

were contained in § 90.8 of the August 

2011 proposed rule, are contained in 

§ 86.8 of this final rule. 

Some commenters stated that APHIS 

should not preempt any State’s 

identification requirements. 

It is our view that the minimal 

preemption provisions provided in 

these regulations are necessary to ensure 

that no one State or Tribe can establish 

certain requirement for having livestock 

moved into their State or Tribe. For 

example, we do not believe a State 

should be able to require that all cattle 

entering its jurisdiction have an RFID 

eartag, nor should a receiving State be 

able to require a method of 

identification that is not listed as official 

in our regulations unless agreed to by 

the shipping State. 

It was stated that APHIS should 

preempt States’ or Tribes’ identification 

requirements, except when those 

requirements are stricter than ours. 

States and Tribes should be able to 

impose more strict requirements than 

ours, e.g., requiring the official 

identification of feeder cattle during the 

time they are exempt from the Federal 

regulation. 

These regulations only preempt the 

specific items noted in the preemption 

clause in § 86.8. A State or Tribe may 

require official identification for 

livestock to enter its jurisdiction when 

these regulations do not, so long as that 

State or Tribe does not specify a 

particular official identification device 

or method to be used if multiple ones 

are allowed under these regulations, or 

to impose requirements that would 

otherwise cause the shipping State or 

Tribe to have to develop a particular 

kind of traceability system or modify its 

existing one. 

A commenter representing a State 

government expressed concern that that 

State’s stricter existing official 

identification requirements, e.g., 

requiring official identification of all 

sexually intact beef cattle as well as all 

classes of dairy and rodeo cattle prior to 

importation, could be preempted under 

this rulemaking. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2061 

As noted above, there is no provision 

in these regulations that would prevent 

a State from requiring official 

identification for cattle that are 

exempted under this rulemaking. 

While we are not making any 

substantive changes to the preemption 

provisions as a result of the comments 

we received, we are making some 

editorial changes for the sake of clarity. 

Miscellaneous Comments 

Some commenters stated that the 

proposed rule did not address the two 

main reservoirs of cattle disease in the 

United States: The introduction of 

tuberculosis from imported Mexican 

cattle and the spread of brucellosis and 

tuberculosis from wildlife to livestock. 

A number of these commenters further 

stated that it was unfair for U.S. cattle 

producers to be burdened with 

additional requirements and costs when 

a principal cause of the resurgence of 

cattle diseases is cattle imported from 

Mexico. 

This rulemaking is not intended to 

provide methods of disease prevention 

or establish policy for international 

trade or wildlife issues. Having these 

traceability regulations in place will 

help us to build a uniform infrastructure 

of animal disease traceability that will 

aid us in disease response. 

This rulemaking is intended to put 

the recordkeeping responsibility and 

data in the hands of States and Tribes. 

States and Tribes may choose to use the 

data systems already developed by 

APHIS, but the data contained in those 

systems are controlled at the local level. 

Maintenance of distribution records of 

official identification devices is shared 

among States/Tribes, APHIS, and the 

private sector. For instance, the 

distribution of official AIN eartags 

purchased by private individuals is 

recorded in an APHIS system by the tag 

manufacturers and distributors. Other 

official eartags purchased with State or 

Tribe resources are recorded in 

databases or logs at the discretion of the 

State or Tribe. While APHIS provides 

NUES tags to States and Tribes, the 

States and Tribes also may obtain 

official identification tags from 

approved manufacturers. 

Many commenters faulted the 

proposed rule for not addressing 

potential liabilities to producers and 

associated individuals and entities 

under our traceability system. It was 

stated that under the bookend system 

we are attempting to implement, the 

person applying an identification tag 

would be the primary suspect in any 

disease traceback investigation, even if 

the animal was sold by that person well 

before detection of the disease. 

Our animal disease programs are not 

designed to find fault or assign blame 

for disease, but to find and control 

disease. With a bookend system of 

traceability, the point-of-origin 

identification merely provides a starting 

point for an epidemiological 

investigation to trace an animal forward. 

The identification collected at slaughter 

is a starting point for tracing the animal 

backward. Good identification and 

recordkeeping at the farm level can 

actually reduce the impact of a disease 

investigation on producers, livestock 

markets, and other entities. For 

example, if a producer has a record that 

the animal of interest in an investigation 

was tested prior to movement or that a 

herd test was conducted, the amount of 

time Federal, State, or Tribal officials 

may be required to spend at the farm 

could be minimized, thereby 

minimizing the effect on the producer’s 

operations. 

It was stated by one commenter that 

our proposed traceability system would 

eliminate redundancies built into 

current systems and actually degrade, 

rather than enhance, traceability. The 

commenter did not offer any evidence to 

support that claim, however. 

The same commenter also stated that 

APHIS lacks the constitutional and 

statutory authority to establish a 

traceability system. According to the 

commenter, the language of the Animal 

Health Protection Act does not confer 

broad authority to mandate overt action 

by producers in the form of an animal 

traceability system. The commenter 

claimed that our assertion of such broad 

powers is contrary to Article 1, Section 

8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

The Animal Health Protection Act 

authorizes the Secretary ‘‘to prohibit or 

restrict the movement in interstate 

commerce of any animal, article, or 

means of conveyance, if the Secretary 

determines that the prohibition or 

restriction is necessary to prevent the 

introduction of dissemination of any 

pest or disease of livestock.’’ The 

promulgation of regulations establishing 

an animal disease traceability system is 

clearly within APHIS’ statutory 

authority. 

It was also maintained that the 

proposed rule represented an 

unauthorized attempt by APHIS to 

implement OIE codes and standards 

domestically. 

We do not agree with this comment. 

In this rulemaking, we are promulgating 

regulations that improve traceability 

nationally and yet allow the flexibility 

at the local level for States and Tribes 

to implement traceability solutions that 

work best for them. 

One commenter noted that horses are 

not classified as livestock by the Food 

and Drug Administration and stated that 

agencies need to decide on a single 

classification before traceability 

requirements for horses go into effect. 

We will not be making any changes to 

the final rule in response to this 

comment. Horses are classified as 

livestock under the Animal Health 

Protection Act, from which we derive 

our authority to regulate to protect 

animal health. 

A commenter pointed out a possible 

discrepancy in the regulations regarding 

cervid herd tuberculosis testing and 

reaccreditation intervals. In current and 

proposed §§ 77.25, 77.27, and 77.29, 

reference is made to requirements for 

testing within 24 months of interstate 

movement. In § 77.35, however, there is 

a reference to a 36-month interval for 

herd testing for reaccreditation. 

While we did not propose any 

changes to the requirements for testing 

intervals in these sections, we note that 

the differing intervals to which the 

commenter refers are associated with 

testing for different purposes. 

A commenter representing a 

community of Old Order Amish 

opposed the proposed rule on religious 

grounds. 

The commenter would only be subject 

to the traceability regulations if moving 

livestock interstate, and the availability 

of alternate tagging sites would make it 

possible for identification practices to 

which he might object to be carried out 

after a change of ownership of the 

livestock. While we respect the 

commenter’s religious beliefs, we do 

need to be able to trace animals to 

prevent the spread of livestock pests 

and diseases. Congress has authorized 

the Secretary to regulate animals 

moving interstate when necessary to 

prevent the spread of disease. 

A commenter representing a State 

Government stated that the proposed 

rule did not explain whether an 

approved livestock facility would be 

treated the same as the approved 

livestock markets in the existing 

regulations. The commenter maintained 

that cattle buying stations should be 

considered to be approved livestock 

facilities. 

The regulations in § 71.20 use the 

term ‘‘approved livestock facility,’’ and 

we use the term in these regulations to 

provide consistency and a source of 

reference. Cattle buying stations could 

be recognized as approved livestock 

facilities if they are approved under 

§ 71.20. 

A commenter stated that a concern in 

Pennsylvania about the proposed rule 

was that the proposed traceability plan 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

would revert to older, more 

conventional technologies, such as 

metal tags and paper. Pennsylvania 

already uses RFID technology and has a 

rather sophisticated electronic database 

system. The commenter questioned how 

APHIS’ proposed system would mesh 

with the electronic system that currently 

works very well in the State. 

This rulemaking does not prohibit the 

use of RFID technology and electronic 

records. No State can deny entry to 

animals identified with electronic 

eartags and accompanied by electronic 

records if they met the standards 

provided for in these regulations. The 

regulations do, however, prohibit a State 

or Tribe from mandating the use of RFID 

or electronic records, or any other 

specific technology, for animals moving 

into their jurisdiction. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563, which direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and equity). Executive Order 

13563 emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

economic analysis also provides a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

examines the potential economic effects 

of this rule on small entities, as required 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 1 in this document for 

a link to Regulations.gov) or by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

We are establishing general 

traceability regulations for certain 

livestock moving interstate. The 

purpose of this rulemaking is to 

improve APHIS’ ability to trace such 

livestock in the event disease is found. 

The benefits of this rulemaking are 

expected to exceed the costs overall. 

While the rule applies to cattle and 

bison, horses and other equine species, 

poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and 

captive cervids, the focus of this 

analysis is on expected economic effects 

for the beef and dairy cattle industries. 

These enterprises are likely to be most 

affected operationally by the rule. For 

the other species, APHIS will largely 

maintain and build on the identification 

requirements of existing disease 

program regulations. 

Costs for cattle producers are 

estimated in terms of activities that will 

need to be conducted for official animal 

identification and issuance of an ICVI, 

or other movement documentation, for 

livestock moved interstate. Incremental 

costs incurred are expected to vary 

depending upon a number of factors, 

including whether an enterprise does or 

does not already use eartags to identify 

individual cattle. For many operators, 

costs of official animal identification 

and ICVIs will be similar, respectively, 

to costs associated with current animal 

identification practices and the 

inshipment documentation currently 

required by individual States. Existing 

expenditures for these activities 

represent cost baselines for the private 

sector. To the extent that official animal 

identification and ICVIs will simply 

replace current requirements, the 

incremental costs of the rule for private 

enterprises will be minimal. 

There are two main cost components 

for this rule: Using eartags to identify 

cattle and having ICVIs for cattle moved 

interstate. Approximately 20 percent of 

cattle are not currently eartagged as part 

of routine management practices, and an 

estimated 45 percent of cattle are 

identified for management purposes 

other than by using official 

identification. Annual incremental costs 

of official identification for cattle 

enterprises are estimated to total from 

$12.5 million to $30.5 million, assuming 

producers who are not already using 

official identification will tag their cattle 

as an activity separate from other 

routine management practices. More 

likely, some producers who are not 

already using official eartags can be 

expected to combine tagging with other 

routine activities such as vaccination or 

de-worming, thereby avoiding the costs 

associated with working cattle through 

a chute an additional time. Under this 

second scenario, the total incremental 

cost of official identification will range 

from $8.9 million to $19.7 million. After 

considering public comments, we have 

increased the estimated cost of this 

second scenario. We recognize that all 

producers may not combine tagging 

with other management activities and 

therefore some will continue to incur 

higher costs. 

All States currently require a 

certificate of veterinary inspection, 

commonly referred to as a health 

certificate, for the inshipment from 

other States of breeder cattle, and 48 

States require one for feeder cattle. 

Annual incremental costs of the rule for 

ICVI’s are estimated to range between $2 

million and $3.8 million. If States 

currently requiring documentation other 

than ICVIs, such as owner-shipper 

statements or brand certificates, 

continue to accept these documents in 

lieu of an ICVI, as permitted by this 

rule, the ICVI requirement in this rule 

will not result in any additional costs. 

The combined annual costs of the rule 

for cattle operations of official 

identification and movement 

documentation will range between 

$14.5 million and $34.3 million, 

assuming official identification will be 

undertaken separately from other 

routine management practices; or 

between $10.9 million and $23.5 

million, assuming that some producers 

will combine tagging with other routine 

management practices that require 

working cattle through a chute. 

Currently, States and Tribes bear 

responsibilities for the collection, 

maintenance, and retrieval of data on 

interstate livestock movements. These 

responsibilities will be maintained 

under this rulemaking, but the way they 

are administered will likely change. 

Based on availability, Federal funding 

will be allocated to assist States and 

Tribes as necessary in automating data 

collection, maintenance, and retrieval to 

advance animal disease traceability. 

Direct benefits of improved 

traceability include the public and 

private cost savings expected to be 

gained under the rule. Case studies for 

bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, 

and BSE illustrate the inefficiencies 

currently often faced in tracing disease 

occurrences due to inadequate animal 

identification and the potential gains in 

terms of cost savings that may derive 

from the rule. 

Benefits of the traceability system are 

for the most part potential benefits that 

rest on largely unknown probabilities of 

disease occurrence and reactions by 

domestic and foreign markets. The 

primary benefit of the regulations will 

be the enhanced ability of the United 

States to regionalize and 

compartmentalize animal health issues 

more quickly, minimizing losses and 

enabling reestablishment of foreign and 

domestic market access with minimum 

delay in the wake of an animal disease 

event. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2063 

Having a traceability system in place 

will allow the United States to trace 

animal disease more quickly and 

efficiently, thereby minimizing not only 

the spread of disease but also the trade 

impacts an outbreak may have. The 

value of U.S. exports of live cattle in 

2010 was $131.8 million, and the value 

of U.S. beef exports totaled $2.8 billion. 

The value of U.S. cattle and calf 

production in 2009 was $31.8 billion. 

The estimated incremental costs of the 

rule for cattle enterprises—between 

$14.5 million and $34.3 million, 

assuming official identification is a 

separately performed activity, and 

between $10.9 million and $23.5 

million, assuming some official 

identification is combined by some 

operations with other routine 

management practices that require 

working cattle through a chute— 

represent about one-tenth of one percent 

of the value of domestic cattle and calf 

production. If there were an animal 

disease outbreak in the United States 

that affected our domestic and 

international beef markets, preservation 

of only a very small proportion of these 

markets would justify estimated private 

sector costs attributable to the animal 

disease traceability program. 

Most cattle operations in the United 

States are small entities. USDA will 

ensure the rule’s workability and cost 

effectiveness by collaborating in its 

implementation with representatives 

from States, Tribes, and affected 

industries. 

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 13175 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, APHIS has consulted with Tribal 

Government officials. A tribal summary 

impact statement, published 

concurrently with the August 2011 

proposed rule, includes a summary of 

Tribal officials’ concerns and of how 

APHIS has attempted to address them. 

Copies of the tribal impact summary 

statement are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

in this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov). 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

State and local laws and regulations that 

are in conflict with this rule, as 

provided in § 86.8; (2) has no retroactive 

effect; and (3) does not require 

administrative proceedings before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains two 

information collection requirements that 

were not included in the proposed rule. 

Specifically, in response to comments 

we received on the proposed rule, this 

final rule allows States and Tribes to use 

eartags with their State or Tribal code 

printed inside an official eartag shield. 

The rule also includes an ICVI-related 

recordkeeping requirement for 

accredited veterinarians that was not 

noted in the proposed rule. 

Notwithstanding these additional 

requirements, the total paperwork 

burden is reduced from what we 

determined it to be in the proposed rule 

because we did not adequately account 

for the increasing use by States of 

electronic recordkeeping for ICVIs and, 

as a result, overestimated the ICVI 

reporting burden for the States. In 

accordance with section 3507(d) of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this information 

collection requirement has been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). When 

OMB notifies us of its decision, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of the 

assigned OMB control number or, if 

approval is denied, providing notice of 

what action we plan to take. 

List of Subjects 

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, and 78 

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, 

Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Tuberculosis. 

9 CFR Part 86 

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, 

Interstate movement, Livestock, Official 

identification, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Traceability. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

chapter I as follows: 

PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 2. Section 71.1 is amended by revising 

the definitions of animal identification 

number (AIN), group/lot identification 

number (GIN), livestock, official eartag, 

official identification device or method, 

and premises identification number 

(PIN), removing the definitions of 

moved (movement) in interstate 

commerce and United States 

Department of Agriculture Backtag, and 

adding definitions of flock-based 

number system, flock identification 

number (FIN), move, National Uniform 

Eartagging System (NUES), official 

eartag shield, official identification 

number, and United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 71.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Animal identification number (AIN). 

A numbering system for the official 

identification of individual animals in 

the United States that provides a 

nationally unique identification number 

for each animal. The AIN consists of 15 

digits, with the first 3 being the country 

code (840 for the United States or a 

unique country code for any U.S. 

territory that has such a code and elects 

to use it in place of the 840 code). The 

alpha characters USA or the numeric 

code assigned to the manufacturer of the 

identification device by the 

International Committee on Animal 

Recording may be used as an alternative 

to the 840 or other prefix representing 

a U.S territory; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 or other prefix 

representing a U.S. territory will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning 

with the 840 prefix may not be applied 

to animals known to have been born 

outside the United States. 

* * * * * 

Flock-based number system. The 

flock-based number system combines a 

flock identification number (FIN) with a 

producer’s unique livestock production 

numbering system to provide a 

nationally unique identification number 

for an animal. 

Flock identification number (FIN). A 

nationally unique number assigned by a 

State, Tribal, or Federal animal health 

authority to a group of animals that are 

managed as a unit on one or more 

premises and are under the same 

ownership. 

* * * * * 

Group/lot identification number 

(GIN). The identification number used 

to uniquely identify a ‘‘unit of animals’’ 

of the same species that is managed 

together as one group throughout the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2064 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

preharvest production chain. When a 

GIN is used, it is recorded on 

documents accompanying the animals 

moving interstate; it is not necessary to 

have the GIN attached to each animal. 

* * * * * 

Livestock. All farm-raised animals. 

* * * * * 

Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, 

ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or 

induce carrying, entering, importing, 

mailing, shipping, or transporting; to 

offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, 

or transport; to receive in order to carry, 

enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; or 

to allow any of these activities. 

National Uniform Eartagging System 

(NUES). A numbering system for the 

official identification of individual 

animals in the United States that 

provides a nationally unique 

identification number for each animal. 

* * * * * 

Official eartag. An identification tag 

approved by APHIS that bears an 

official identification number for 

individual animals. Beginning March 

11, 2014, all official eartags 

manufactured must bear an official 

eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 

2015, all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear an official eartag 

shield. The design, size, shape, color, 

and other characteristics of the official 

eartag will depend on the needs of the 

users, subject to the approval of the 

Administrator. The official eartag must 

be tamper-resistant and have a high 

retention rate in the animal. 

Official eartag shield. The 

shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. Route 

Shield with ‘‘U.S.’’ or the State postal 

abbreviation or Tribal alpha code 

imprinted within the shield. 

Official identification device or 

method. A means approved by the 

Administrator of applying an official 

identification number to an animal of a 

specific species or associating an official 

identification number with an animal or 

group of animals of a specific species. 

Official identification number. A 

nationally unique number that is 

permanently associated with an animal 

or group of animals and that adheres to 

one of the following systems: 

(1) National Uniform Eartagging 

System (NUES). 

(2) Animal identification number 

(AIN). 

(3) Location-based number system. 

(4) Flock-based number system. 

(5) Any other numbering system 

approved by the Administrator for the 

official identification of animals. 

* * * * * 

Premises identification number (PIN). 

A nationally unique number assigned by 

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal 

health authority to a premises that is, in 

the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/ 

or Federal animal health authority a 

geographically distinct location from 

other premises. The PIN may be used in 

conjunction with a producer’s own 

unique livestock production numbering 

system to provide a nationally unique 

and herd-unique identification number 

for an animal. It may be used as a 

component of a group/lot identification 

number (GIN). 

* * * * * 

United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. 

A backtag issued by APHIS that 

provides a temporary unique 

identification for each animal. 

§ 71.18 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 3. Section 71.18 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 71.19 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 71.19, paragraphs (b)(2) and (d) 

introductory text are amended by 

removing the words ‘‘United States 

Department of Agriculture backtags’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

approved backtag’’ in their place each 

time they occur. 

§ 71.22 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 5. Section 71.22 is removed and 

reserved. 

PART 77—TUBERCULOSIS 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 77 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 7. Section 77.2 is amended by revising 

the definitions of animal identification 

number (AIN), livestock, official eartag, 

and premises identification number 

(PIN), removing the definitions of 

certificate, moved, moved directly, and 

premises of origin identification, and 

adding definitions of directly, interstate 

certificate of veterinary inspection 

(ICVI), location-based numbering 

system, location identification (LID) 

number, move, National Uniform 

Eartagging System (NUES), official 

eartag shield, official identification 

number, recognized slaughtering 

establishment, and United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

approved backtag in alphabetical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 77.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Animal identification number (AIN). 

A numbering system for the official 

identification of individual animals in 

the United States that provides a 

nationally unique identification number 

for each animal. The AIN consists of 15 

digits, with the first 3 being the country 

code (840 for the United States or a 

unique country code for any U.S. 

territory that has such a code and elects 

to use it in place of the 840 code). The 

alpha characters USA or the numeric 

code assigned to the manufacturer of the 

identification device by the 

International Committee on Animal 

Recording may be used as an alternative 

to the 840 or other prefix representing 

a U.S territory; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 or other prefix 

representing a U.S. territory will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning 

with the 840 prefix may not be applied 

to animals known to have been born 

outside the United States. 

* * * * * 

Directly. Moved in a means of 

conveyance, without stopping to unload 

while en route, except for stops of less 

than 24 hours to feed, water, or rest the 

animals being moved, and with no 

commingling of animals at such stops. 

* * * * * 

Interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection (ICVI). An official document 

issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or 

accredited veterinarian certifying the 

inspection of animals in preparation for 

interstate movement. 

(a) The ICVI must show the species of 

animals covered by the ICVI; the 

number of animals covered by the ICVI; 

the purpose for which the animals are 

to be moved; the address at which the 

animals were loaded for interstate 

movement; the address to which the 

animals are destined; and the names of 

the consignor and the consignee and 

their addresses if different from the 

address at which the animals were 

loaded or the address to which the 

animals are destined. Additionally, 

unless the species-specific requirements 

for ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI 

must list the official identification 

number of each animal, except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, or group of animals moved 

that is required to be officially 

identified, or, if an alternative form of 

identification has been agreed upon by 

the sending and receiving States, the 

ICVI must include a record of that 

identification. If animals moving under 

a GIN also have individual official 

identification, only the GIN must be 

listed on the ICVI. An ICVI may not be 

issued for any animal that is not 

officially identified if official 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2065 

identification is required. If the animals 

are not required by the regulations to be 

officially identified, the ICVI must state 

the exemption that applies (e.g., the 

cattle and bison do not belong to one of 

the classes of cattle and bison to which 

the official identification requirements 

of 9 CFR part 86 apply). If the animals 

are required to be officially identified 

but the identification number does not 

have to be recorded on the ICVI, the 

ICVI must state that all animals to be 

moved under the ICVI are officially 

identified. 

(b) As an alternative to typing or 

writing individual animal identification 

on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving 

State or Tribe, another document may 

be used to provide this information, but 

only under the following conditions: 

(1) The document must be a State 

form or APHIS form that requires 

individual identification of animals or a 

printout of official identification 

numbers generated by computer or other 

means; 

(2) A legible copy of the document 

must be stapled to the original and each 

copy of the ICVI; 

(3) Each copy of the document must 

identify each animal to be moved with 

the ICVI, but any information pertaining 

to other animals, and any unused space 

on the document for recording animal 

identification, must be crossed out in 

ink; and 

(4) The following information must be 

written in ink in the identification 

column on the original and each copy 

of the ICVI and must be circled or 

boxed, also in ink, so that no additional 

information can be added: 

(i) The name of the document; and 

(ii) Either the unique serial number on 

the document or, if the document is not 

imprinted with a serial number, both 

the name of the person who prepared 

the document and the date the 

document was signed. 

Livestock. All farm-raised animals. 

Location-based numbering system. 

The location-based number system 

combines a State or Tribal issued 

location identification (LID) number or 

a premises identification number (PIN) 

with a producer’s unique livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. 

Location identification (LID) number. 

A nationally unique number issued by 

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal 

health authority to a location as 

determined by the State or Tribe in 

which it is issued. The LID number may 

be used in conjunction with a 

producer’s own unique livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. It may also be used as a 

component of a group/lot identification 

number (GIN). 

Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, 

ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or 

induce carrying, entering, importing, 

mailing, shipping, or transporting; to 

offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, 

or transport; to receive in order to carry, 

enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; or 

to allow any of these activities. 

National Uniform Eartagging System 

(NUES). A numbering system for the 

official identification of individual 

animals in the United States that 

provides a nationally unique 

identification number for each animal. 

Official eartag. An identification tag 

approved by APHIS that bears an 

official identification number for 

individual animals. Beginning March 

11, 2014, all official eartags 

manufactured must bear an official 

eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 

2015, all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear an official eartag 

shield. The design, size, shape, color, 

and other characteristics of the official 

eartag will depend on the needs of the 

users, subject to the approval of the 

Administrator. The official eartag must 

be tamper-resistant and have a high 

retention rate in the animal. 

Official eartag shield. The 

shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. Route 

Shield with ‘‘U.S.’’ or the State postal 

abbreviation or Tribal alpha code 

imprinted within the shield. 

Official identification number. A 

nationally unique number that is 

permanently associated with an animal 

or group of animals and that adheres to 

one of the following systems: 

(1) National Uniform Eartagging 

System (NUES). 

(2) Animal identification number 

(AIN). 

(3) Flock-based number system. 

(4) Location-based number system. 

(5) Any other numbering system 

approved by the Administrator for the 

official identification of animals. 

* * * * * 

Premises identification number (PIN). 

A nationally unique number assigned by 

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal 

health authority to a premises that is, in 

the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/ 

or Federal animal health authority a 

geographically distinct location from 

other premises. The PIN may be used in 

conjunction with a producer’s own 

livestock production numbering system 

to provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. It may be used as a component 

of a group/lot identification number 

(GIN). 

Recognized slaughtering 

establishment. Any slaughtering facility 

operating under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 

U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or State meat or 

poultry inspection acts that is approved 

in accordance with 9 CFR 71.21. 

* * * * * 

United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. 

A backtag issued by APHIS that 

provides a temporary unique 

identification for each animal. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 77.5 is amended by 

removing the definition of approved 

slaughtering establishment and adding a 

definition of recognized slaughtering 

establishment in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 77.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Recognized slaughtering 

establishment. Any slaughtering facility 

operating under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 

U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or State meat or 

poultry inspection acts that is approved 

in accordance with 9 CFR 71.21. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 77.8 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.8 Interstate movement from 

accredited-free States and zones. 

Cattle or bison that originate in an 

accredited-free State or zone may be 

moved interstate in accordance with 9 

CFR part 86 without further restriction 

under this part. 

■ 10. Section 77.10 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.10 Interstate movement from modified 

accredited advanced States and zones. 

Cattle or bison that originate in a 

modified accredited advanced State or 

zone, and that are not known to be 

infected with or exposed to 

tuberculosis, may be moved interstate 

only in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 

and, if moved anywhere other than 

directly to slaughter at a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, under one 

of the following additional conditions: 

(a) The cattle or bison are sexually 

intact heifers moved to an approved 

feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers, 

and are officially identified. 

(b) The cattle or bison are from an 

accredited herd, are officially identified, 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2066 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

that the accredited herd completed the 

testing necessary for accredited status 

with negative results within 1 year prior 

to the date of movement. 

(c) The cattle or bison are sexually 

intact animals; are not from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that they were negative to an official 

tuberculin test conducted within 60 

days prior to the date of movement. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 0579–0146, 

0579–0220, and 0579–0229) 

■ 11. Section 77.12 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.12 Interstate movement from modified 

accredited States and zones. 

Cattle or bison that originate in a 

modified accredited State or zone, and 

that are not known to be infected with 

or exposed to tuberculosis, may be 

moved interstate only in accordance 

with 9 CFR part 86 and, if moved 

anywhere other than directly to 

slaughter at a recognized slaughtering 

establishment, under one of the 

following additional conditions: 

(a) The cattle or bison are sexually 

intact heifers moved to an approved 

feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers; 

are officially identified, and are 

accompanied by an ICVI stating that 

they were classified negative to an 

official tuberculin test conducted within 

60 days prior to the date of movement. 

(b) The cattle or bison are from an 

accredited herd, are officially identified, 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the accredited herd completed the 

testing necessary for accredited status 

with negative results within 1 year prior 

to the date of movement. 

(c) The cattle or bison are sexually 

intact animals; are not from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the herd from which they 

originated was negative to a whole herd 

test conducted within 1 year prior to the 

date of movement and that the 

individual animals to be moved were 

negative to an additional official 

tuberculin test conducted within 60 

days prior to the date of movement, 

except that the additional test is not 

required if the animals are moved 

interstate within 60 days following the 

whole herd test. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0146) 

■ 12. Section 77.14 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.14 Interstate movement from 

accreditation preparatory States and zones. 

Cattle or bison that originate in an 

accreditation preparatory State or zone, 

and that are not known to be infected 

with or exposed to tuberculosis, may be 

moved interstate only in accordance 

with 9 CFR part 86 and, if moved 

anywhere other than directly to 

slaughter at a recognized slaughtering 

establishment, under one of the 

following additional conditions: 

(a) The cattle or bison are sexually 

intact heifers moved to an approved 

feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers; 

are officially identified; and are 

accompanied by an ICVI stating that the 

herd from which they originated was 

negative to a whole herd test conducted 

within 1 year prior to the date of 

movement and that the individual 

animals to be moved were negative to an 

additional official tuberculin test 

conducted within 60 days prior to the 

date of movement; Except that: The 

additional test is not required if the 

animals are moved interstate within 6 

months following the whole herd test. 

(b) The cattle or bison are from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the accredited herd completed the 

testing necessary for accredited status 

with negative results within 1 year prior 

to the date of movement and that the 

animals to be moved were negative to an 

official tuberculin test conducted within 

60 days prior to the date of movement. 

(c) The cattle or bison are sexually 

intact animals; are not from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the herd from which they 

originated was negative to a whole herd 

test conducted within 1 year prior to the 

date of movement and that the 

individual animals to be moved were 

negative to two additional official 

tuberculin tests conducted at least 60 

days apart and no more than 6 months 

apart, with the second test conducted 

within 60 days prior to the date of 

movement; Except that: The second 

additional test is not required if the 

animals are moved interstate within 60 

days following the whole herd test. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0146) 

§ 77.16 [Amended] 

■ 13. Section 77.16 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘an approved’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘a recognized’’ in 

their place. 

§ 77.17 [Amended] 

■ 14. Section 77.17 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a) introductory text 

and (b) introductory text, by removing 

the words ‘‘an approved’’ and adding 

the words ‘‘a recognized’’ in their place. 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(4), by removing the 

words ‘‘transportation document’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘VS Form 1–27’’ in 

their place. 

■ c. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words ‘‘to an approved slaughtering 

establishment’’ and adding the words 

‘‘to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment in accordance with 9 CFR 

part 86’’ in their place. 

■ 15. Section 77.23 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.23 Interstate movement from 

accredited-free States and zones. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of this part, captive cervids that 

originate in an accredited-free State or 

zone may be moved interstate in 

accordance with 9 CFR part 86 and 

without further restriction under this 

part. 

■ 16. Section 77.25 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.25 Interstate movement from modified 

accredited advanced States and zones. 

Captive cervids that originate in a 

modified accredited advanced State or 

zone, and that are not known to be 

infected with or exposed to 

tuberculosis, may be moved interstate 

only in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 

and, if moved anywhere other than 

directly to slaughter at a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, under one 

of the following additional conditions: 

(a) The captive cervids are from an 

accredited herd, qualified herd, or 

monitored herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the herd completed the 

requirements for accredited herd, 

qualified herd, or monitored herd status 

within 24 months prior to the date of 

movement. 

(b) The captive cervids are officially 

identified and are accompanied by an 

ICVI stating that they were negative to 

an official tuberculin test conducted 

within 90 days prior to the date of 

movement. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0146) 

■ 17. Section 77.27 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.27 Interstate movement from modified 

accredited States and zones. 

Except for captive cervids from a 

qualified herd or monitored herd, as 

provided in §§ 77.36 and 77.37, 

respectively, captive cervids that 

originate in a modified accredited State 

or zone, and that are not known to be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2067 

infected with or exposed to 

tuberculosis, may be moved interstate 

only in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 

and, if moved anywhere other than 

directly to slaughter at a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, under one 

of the following additional conditions: 

(a) The captive cervids are from an 

accredited herd, are officially identified, 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the accredited herd completed the 

testing necessary for accredited status 

with negative results within 24 months 

prior to the date of movement. 

(b) The captive cervids are sexually 

intact animals; are not from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the herd from which they 

originated was negative to a whole herd 

test conducted within 1 year prior to the 

date of movement and that the 

individual animals to be moved were 

negative to an additional official 

tuberculin test conducted within 90 

days prior to the date of movement; 

Except that: The additional test is not 

required if the animals are moved 

interstate within 6 months following the 

whole herd test. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0146) 

■ 18. Section 77.29 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 77.29 Interstate movement from 

accreditation preparatory States and zones. 

Except for captive cervids from a 

qualified herd or monitored herd, as 

provided in §§ 77.36 and 77.37, 

respectively, captive cervids that 

originate in an accreditation preparatory 

State or zone, and that are not known 

to be infected with or exposed to 

tuberculosis, may be moved interstate 

only in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 

and, if moved anywhere other than 

directly to slaughter at a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, under one 

of the following additional conditions: 

(a) The captive cervids are from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the accredited herd completed the 

testing necessary for accredited status 

with negative results within 24 months 

prior to the date of movement and that 

the individual animals to be moved 

were negative to an official tuberculin 

test conducted within 90 days prior to 

the date of movement. 

(b) The captive cervids are sexually 

intact animals; are not from an 

accredited herd; are officially identified; 

and are accompanied by an ICVI stating 

that the herd from which they 

originated was negative to a whole herd 

test conducted within 1 year prior to the 

date of movement and that the 

individual animals to be moved were 

negative to two additional official 

tuberculin tests conducted at least 90 

days apart and no more than 6 months 

apart, with the second test conducted 

within 90 days prior to the date of 

movement; Except that: The second 

additional test is not required if the 

animals are moved interstate within 6 

months following the whole herd test. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0146) 

§ 77.31 [Amended] 

■ 19. Section 77.31 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘an approved’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘a recognized’’ in 

their place. 

§ 77.32 [Amended] 

■ 20. Section 77.32 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), by removing the 

words ‘‘§§ 77.25(a), 77.27(a), 77.29(a), 

and 77.31(d)’’ and adding the words ‘‘9 

CFR part 86’’ in their place. 

■ b. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words ‘‘accompanied by a certificate’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘officially 

identified and accompanied by an ICVI’’ 

in their place. 

■ 21. In § 77.35, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 77.35 Interstate movement from 

accredited herds. 

* * * * * 

(b) Movement allowed. Except as 

provided in § 77.23 with regard to 

captive cervids that originate in an 

accredited-free State or zone, and except 

as provided in § 77.31 with regard to 

captive cervids that originate in a 

nonaccredited State or zone, a captive 

cervid from an accredited herd may be 

moved interstate without further 

tuberculosis testing only if it is officially 

identified and is accompanied by an 

ICVI, as provided in § 77.32(c), that 

includes a statement that the captive 

cervid is from an accredited herd. If a 

group of captive cervids from an 

accredited herd is being moved 

interstate together to the same 

destination, all captive cervids in the 

group may be moved under one ICVI. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. In § 77.36, paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), 

and (b)(4) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 77.36 Interstate movement from qualified 

herds. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The captive cervid is officially 

identified and is accompanied by an 

ICVI, as provided in § 77.32(c), that 

includes a statement that the captive 

cervid is from a qualified herd. Except 

as provided in paragraphs (b)(3) and 

(b)(4) of this section, the ICVI must also 

state that the captive cervid has tested 

negative to an official tuberculosis test 

conducted within 90 days prior to the 

date of movement. If a group of captive 

cervids from a qualified herd is being 

moved interstate together to the same 

destination, all captive cervids in the 

group may be moved under one ICVI. 

(3) Captive cervids under 1 year of age 

that are natural additions to the 

qualified herd or that were born in and 

originate from a classified herd may 

move without testing, provided that 

they are officially identified and that the 

ICVI accompanying them states that the 

captive cervids are natural additions to 

the qualified herd or were born in and 

originated from a classified herd and 

have not been exposed to captive 

cervids from an unclassified herd. 

(4) Captive cervids being moved 

interstate for the purpose of exhibition 

only may be moved without testing, 

provided they are returned to the 

premises of origin no more than 90 days 

after leaving the premises, have no 

contact with other livestock during 

movement and exhibition, are officially 

identified, and are accompanied by an 

ICVI that includes a statement that the 

captive cervid is from a qualified herd 

and will otherwise meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. In § 77.37, paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(b)(3) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 77.37 Interstate movement from 

monitored herds. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The captive cervid is officially 

identified and is accompanied by an 

ICVI, as provided in § 77.32(c), that 

includes a statement that the captive 

cervid is from a monitored herd. Except 

as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, the ICVI must also state that the 

captive cervid has tested negative to an 

official tuberculosis test conducted 

within 90 days prior to the date of 

movement. If a group of captive cervids 

from a monitored herd is being moved 

interstate together to the same 

destination, all captive cervids in the 

group may be moved under one ICVI. 

(3) Captive cervids under 1 year of age 

that are natural additions to the 

monitored herd or that were born in and 

originate from a classified herd may 

move without testing, provided that 

they are officially identified and that the 

ICVI accompanying them states that the 

captive cervids are natural additions to 

the monitored herd or were born in and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2068 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

originated from a classified herd and 

have not been exposed to captive 

cervids from an unclassified herd. 

* * * * * 

§ 77.40 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 77.40, paragraph (a)(3) is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘an 

approved’’ and adding the words ‘‘a 

recognized’’ in their place. 

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS 

■ 25. The authority citation for part 78 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 26. Section 78.1 is amended by 

revising the definitions of animal 

identification number (AIN), dairy 

cattle, directly, market cattle 

identification test cattle, official eartag, 

officially identified, and recognized 

slaughtering establishment, removing 

the definitions of certificate, official 

identification device or method, and 

rodeo bulls, and adding definitions of 

commuter herd, commuter herd 

agreement, interstate certificate of 

veterinary inspection (ICVI), locationbased numbering system, location 

identification (LID) number, National 

Uniform Eartagging System (NUES), 

official eartag shield, official 

identification number, and rodeo cattle 

in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 78.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Animal identification number (AIN). 

A numbering system for the official 

identification of individual animals in 

the United States that provides a 

nationally unique identification number 

for each animal. The AIN consists of 15 

digits, with the first 3 being the country 

code (840 for the United States or a 

unique country code for any U.S. 

territory that has such a code and elects 

to use it in place of the 840 code). The 

alpha characters USA or the numeric 

code assigned to the manufacturer of the 

identification device by the 

International Committee on Animal 

Recording may be used as an alternative 

to the 840 or other prefix representing 

a U.S territory; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 or other prefix 

representing a U.S. territory will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning 

with the 840 prefix may not be applied 

to animals known to have been born 

outside the United States. 

* * * * * 

Commuter herd. A herd of cattle or 

bison moved interstate during the 

course of normal livestock management 

operations and without change of 

ownership directly between two 

premises, as provided in a commuter 

herd agreement. 

Commuter herd agreement. A written 

agreement between the owner(s) of a 

herd of cattle or bison and the animal 

health officials for the States or Tribes 

of origin and destination specifying the 

conditions required for the interstate 

movement from one premises to another 

in the course of normal livestock 

management operations and specifying 

the time period, up to 1 year, that the 

agreement is effective. A commuter herd 

agreement may be renewed annually. 

* * * * * 

Dairy cattle. All cattle, regardless of 

age or sex or current use, that are of a 

breed(s) used to produce milk or other 

dairy products for human consumption, 

including, but not limited to, Ayrshire, 

Brown Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, 

Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn, and Red 

and Whites. 

* * * * * 

Directly. Moved in a means of 

conveyance, without stopping to unload 

while en route, except for stops of less 

than 24 hours to feed, water or rest the 

animals being moved, and with no 

commingling of animals at such stops. 

* * * * * 

Interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection (ICVI). An official document 

issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or 

accredited veterinarian certifying the 

inspection of animals in preparation for 

interstate movement. 

(1) The ICVI must show the species of 

animals covered by the ICVI; the 

number of animals covered by the ICVI; 

the purpose for which the animals are 

to be moved; the address at which the 

animals were loaded for interstate 

movement; the address to which the 

animals are destined; and the names of 

the consignor and the consignee and 

their addresses if different from the 

address at which the animals were 

loaded or the address to which the 

animals are destined. Additionally, 

unless the species-specific requirements 

for ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI 

must list the official identification 

number of each animal, except as 

provided in paragraph (2) of this 

definition, or group of animals moved 

that is required to be officially 

identified, or, if an alternative form of 

identification has been agreed upon by 

the sending and receiving States, the 

ICVI must include a record of that 

identification. If animals moving under 

a GIN also have individual official 

identification, only the GIN must be 

listed on the ICVI. An ICVI may not be 

issued for any animal that is not 

officially identified if official 

identification is required. If the animals 

are not required by the regulations to be 

officially identified, the ICVI must state 

the exemption that applies (e.g., the 

cattle and bison do not belong to one of 

the classes of cattle and bison to which 

the official identification requirements 

of 9 CFR part 86 apply). If the animals 

are required to be officially identified 

but the identification number does not 

have to be recorded on the ICVI, the 

ICVI must state that all animals to be 

moved under the ICVI are officially 

identified. 

(2) As an alternative to typing or 

writing individual animal identification 

on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving 

State or Tribe, another document may 

be used to provide this information, but 

only under the following conditions: 

(i) The document must be a State form 

or APHIS form that requires individual 

identification of animals or a printout of 

official identification numbers 

generated by computer or other means; 

(ii) A legible copy of the document 

must be stapled to the original and each 

copy of the ICVI; 

(iii) Each copy of the document must 

identify each animal to be moved with 

the ICVI, but any information pertaining 

to other animals, and any unused space 

on the document for recording animal 

identification, must be crossed out in 

ink; and 

(iv) The following information must 

be written in ink in the identification 

column on the original and each copy 

of the ICVI and must be circled or 

boxed, also in ink, so that no additional 

information can be added: 

(A) The name of the document; and 

(B) Either the unique serial number on 

the document or, if the document is not 

imprinted with a serial number, both 

the name of the person who prepared 

the document and the date the 

document was signed. 

Location-based number system. The 

location-based number system combines 

a State or Tribal issued location 

identification (LID) number or a 

premises identification number (PIN) 

with a producer’s unique livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. 

Location identification (LID) number. 

A nationally unique number issued by 

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal 

health authority to a location as 

determined by the State or Tribe in 

which it is issued. The LID number may 

be used in conjunction with a 

producer’s own unique livestock 

production numbering system to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2069 

provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. It may also be used as a 

component of a group/lot identification 

number (GIN). 

Market cattle identification test cattle. 

Cows and bulls 18 months of age or over 

which have been moved to recognized 

slaughtering establishments, and testeligible cattle which are subjected to an 

official test for the purposes of 

movement at farms, ranches, auction 

markets, stockyards, quarantined 

feedlots, or other assembly points. Such 

cattle must be identified with an official 

identification device as specified in 

§ 86.4(a) of this chapter prior to or at the 

first market, stockyard, quarantined 

feedlot, or slaughtering establishment 

they reach. 

* * * * * 

National Uniform Eartagging System 

(NUES). A numbering system for the 

official identification of individual 

animals in the United States that 

provides a nationally unique 

identification number for each animal. 

* * * * * 

Official eartag. An identification tag 

approved by APHIS that bears an 

official identification number for 

individual animals. Beginning March 

11, 2014, all official eartags 

manufactured must bear an official 

eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 

2015, all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear an official eartag 

shield. The design, size, shape, color, 

and other characteristics of the official 

eartag will depend on the needs of the 

users, subject to the approval of the 

Administrator. The official eartag must 

be tamper-resistant and have a high 

retention rate in the animal. 

Official eartag shield. The 

shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. Route 

Shield with ‘‘U.S.’’ or the State postal 

abbreviation or Tribal alpha code 

imprinted within the shield. 

* * * * * 

Official identification number. A 

nationally unique number that is 

permanently associated with an animal 

or group of animals and that adheres to 

one of the following systems: 

(1) National Uniform Eartagging 

System. 

(2) Animal identification number 

(AIN). 

(3) Location-based number system. 

(4) Flock-based number system. 

(5) Any other numbering system 

approved by the Administrator for the 

official identification of animals. 

Officially identified. Identified by 

means of an official identification 

device or method approved by the 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

Recognized slaughtering 

establishment. Any slaughtering facility 

operating under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 

U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or State meat or 

poultry inspection acts that is approved 

in accordance with 9 CFR 71.21. 

Rodeo cattle. Cattle used at rodeos or 

competitive events. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Section 78.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 78.2 Handling of certificates, permits, 

and ‘‘S’’ brand permits for interstate 

movement of animals. 

(a) Any ICVI, other interstate 

movement document used in lieu of an 

ICVI, permit, or ‘‘S’’ brand permit 

required by this part for the interstate 

movement of animals shall be delivered 

to the person moving the animals by the 

shipper or shipper’s agent at the time 

the animals are delivered for movement 

and shall accompany the animals to 

their destination and be delivered to the 

consignee or the person receiving the 

animals. 

(b) The APHIS representative, State 

representative, Tribal representative, or 

accredited veterinarian issuing an ICVI 

or other interstate movement document 

used in lieu of an ICVI or a permit, 

except for permits for entry and ‘‘S’’ 

brand permits, that is required for the 

interstate movement of animals under 

this part shall forward a copy of the 

ICVI, other interstate movement 

document used in lieu of an ICVI, or 

permit to the State animal health official 

of the State of origin within 5 working 

days. The State animal health official of 

the State of origin shall forward a copy 

of the ICVI, other interstate movement 

document used in lieu of an ICVI, or 

permit to the State animal health official 

of the State of destination within 5 

working days. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0047) 

■ 28. Section 78.5 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 78.5 General restrictions. 

Cattle may not be moved interstate 

except in compliance with this subpart 

and with 9 CFR part 86. Cattle moved 

interstate under permit in accordance 

with this subpart are not required to be 

accompanied by an interstate certificate 

of veterinary inspection or ownershipper statement. 

■ 29. Section 78.6 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 78.6 Steers and spayed heifers. 

Steers and spayed heifers may be 

moved interstate in accordance with 9 

CFR part 86 and without further 

restriction under this subpart. 

■ 30. Section 78.9 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, by revising 

the first sentence to read as set forth 

below. 

■ b. By revising paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), 

(a)(3)(iii), (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iv), 

(c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv)(A), 

(c)(1)(vi)(A), (c)(2)(ii)(A), (c)(3)(i), 

(c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iv), (d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), 

(d)(1)(iv)(A), (d)(1)(vi)(A), (d)(2)(ii)(A), 

and (d)(3) to read as set forth below. 

§ 78.9 Cattle from herds not known to be 

affected. 

Male cattle which are not test eligible 

and are from herds not known to be 

affected may be moved interstate 

without further restriction under this 

subpart. * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Such cattle are moved interstate as 

part of a commuter herd in accordance 

with a commuter herd agreement or 

other documents as agreed to by the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 

(iii) Such cattle are moved interstate 

accompanied by an ICVI which states, 

in addition to the items specified in 

§ 78.1, that the cattle originated in a 

Class Free State or area. 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Such cattle originate in a certified 

brucellosis-free herd and are 

accompanied interstate by an ICVI 

which states, in addition to the items 

specified in § 78.1, that the cattle 

originated in a certified brucellosis-free 

herd; or 

(ii) Such cattle are negative to an 

official test within 30 days prior to such 

interstate movement and are 

accompanied interstate by an ICVI 

which states, in addition to the items 

specified in § 78.1, the test dates and 

results of the official tests; or 

* * * * * 

(iv) Such cattle are moved as part of 

a commuter herd in accordance with a 

commuter herd agreement or other 

documents as agreed to by the shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes.. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * (i) Such cattle may be 

moved interstate from a farm of origin 

or a nonquarantined feedlot directly to 

a recognized slaughtering establishment 

without further restriction under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Such cattle may be moved 

interstate from a farm of origin directly 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

to an approved intermediate handling 

facility without further restriction under 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(A) They are negative to an official 

test conducted at the specifically 

approved stockyard and are 

accompanied to slaughter by an ICVI or 

‘‘S’’ brand permit which states, in 

addition to the items specified in § 78.1, 

the test dates and results of the official 

tests; or 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(A) They are negative to an official 

test within 30 days prior to such 

interstate movement and are 

accompanied by an ICVI or ‘‘S’’ brand 

permit which states, in addition to the 

items specified in § 78.1, the test dates 

and results of the official tests; or 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) They are negative to an official 

test within 30 days prior to such 

movement and are accompanied by an 

ICVI which states, in addition to the 

items specified in § 78.1, the test dates 

and results of the official tests; or 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) Such cattle originate in a certified 

brucellosis-free herd and are 

accompanied interstate by an ICVI 

which states, in addition to the items 

specified in § 78.1, that the cattle 

originated in a certified brucellosis-free 

herd; or 

(ii) Such cattle are negative to an 

official test within 30 days prior to 

interstate movement, have been issued a 

permit for entry, and are accompanied 

interstate by an ICVI which states, in 

addition to the items specified in § 78.1, 

the test dates and results of the official 

tests; or 

* * * * * 

(iv) Such cattle are moved interstate 

as part of a commuter herd in 

accordance with a commuter herd 

agreement or other documents as agreed 

to by the shipping and receiving States 

or Tribes, and 

(A) The cattle being moved originate 

from a herd in which: 

(1) All the cattle were negative to a 

herd blood test within 1 year prior to 

the interstate movement; 

(2) Any cattle added to the herd after 

such herd blood test were negative to an 

official test within 30 days prior to the 

date the cattle were added to the herd; 

(3) None of the cattle in the herd have 

come in contact with any other cattle; 

and (B) The cattle are accompanied 

interstate by a document which states 

the dates and results of the herd blood 

test and the name of the laboratory in 

which the official tests were conducted 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * (i) Such cattle may be 

moved interstate from a farm of origin 

or a nonquarantined feedlot directly to 

a recognized slaughtering establishment 

without further restriction under this 

subpart. 

(ii) Such cattle may be moved 

interstate from a farm of origin directly 

to an approved intermediate handling 

facility without further restriction under 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(A) They are negative to an official 

test conducted at the specifically 

approved stockyard and are 

accompanied by an ICVI or ‘‘S’’ brand 

permit which states, in addition to the 

items specified in § 78.1, the test dates 

and results of the official tests; or 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(A) They are negative to an official 

test within 30 days prior to such 

interstate movement and are 

accompanied by an ICVI or ‘‘S’’ brand 

permit which states, in addition to the 

items specified in § 78.1, the test dates 

and results of the official tests; or 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) They are negative to an official 

test within 30 days prior to such 

movement and are accompanied by an 

ICVI which states, in addition to the 

items specified in § 78.1, the test dates 

and results of the official tests; or 

* * * * * 

(3) Movement other than in 

accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) 

of this section. Such cattle may be 

moved interstate other than in 

accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) 

of this section only if such cattle 

originate in a certified brucellosis-free 

herd and are accompanied interstate by 

an ICVI which states, in addition to the 

items specified in § 78.1, that the cattle 

originated in a certified brucellosis-free 

herd. 

* * * * * 

§ 78.12 [Amended] 

■ 31. Section 78.12 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, by adding 

the words ‘‘, 9 CFR part 86,’’ after the 

citation ‘‘§ 78.10’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (a), by adding the 

word ‘‘further’’ after the word 

‘‘without’’. 

■ c. In paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), and 

(d)(3)(ii), by removing the words ‘‘a 

certificate’’ and adding the words ‘‘an 

ICVI’’ in their place each time they 

occur. 

■ 32. Section 78.14 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 78.14 Rodeo cattle. 

(a) Rodeo cattle that are test-eligible 

and that are from a herd not known to 

be affected may be moved interstate if: 

(1) They are classified as brucellosis 

negative based upon an official test 

conducted less than 365 days before the 

date of interstate movement: Provided, 

however, That: The official test is not 

required for rodeo cattle that are moved 

only between Class Free States; 

(2) The cattle are identified with an 

official eartag or any other official 

identification device or method 

approved by the Administrator in 

accordance with § 78.5; 

(3) There is no change of ownership 

since the date of the last official test; 

(4) An ICVI accompanies each 

interstate movement of the cattle; and 

(5) A permit for entry is issued for 

each interstate movement of the cattle. 

(b) Cattle that would qualify as rodeo 

cattle, but that are used for breeding 

purposes during the 365 days following 

the date of being tested, may be moved 

interstate only if they meet the 

requirements for cattle in this subpart 

and in 9 CFR part 86. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0047) 

§ 78.20 [Amended] 

■ 33. Section 78.20 is amended by 

adding the words ‘‘and with 9 CFR part 

86’’ after the word ‘‘subpart’’. 

§ 78.21 [Amended] 

■ 34. Section 78.21 is amended by 

adding the word ‘‘further’’ after the 

word ‘‘without’’. 

■ 35. Section 78.23, paragraph (c) 

introductory text, is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 78.23 Brucellosis exposed bison. 

* * * * * 

(c) Movement other than in 

accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of 

this section. Brucellosis exposed bison 

which are from herds known to be 

affected, but which are not part of a 

herd being depopulated under part 51 of 

this chapter, may move without further 

restriction under this subpart if the 

bison: 

* * * * * 

§ 78.24 [Amended] 

■ 36. Section 78.24 is amended as 

follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2071 

■ a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by adding 

the word ‘‘further’’ after the word 

‘‘without’’ each time it occurs. 

■ b. In paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), 

and (d)(4), by removing the words ‘‘a 

certificate’’ and adding the words ‘‘an 

ICVI’’ in their place each time they 

occur. 

■ 37. A new part 86 is added to 

subchapter C to read as follows: 

PART 86—ANIMAL DISEASE 

TRACEABILITY 

Sec. 

86.1 Definitions. 

86.2 General requirements for traceability. 

86.3 Recordkeeping requirements. 

86.4 Official identification. 

86.5 Documentation requirements for 

interstate movement of covered 

livestock. 

86.6 [Reserved] 

86.7 [Reserved] 

86.8 Preemption. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 86.1 Definitions. 

Animal identification number (AIN). 

A numbering system for the official 

identification of individual animals in 

the United States that provides a 

nationally unique identification number 

for each animal. The AIN consists of 15 

digits, with the first 3 being the country 

code (840 for the United States or a 

unique country code for any U.S. 

territory that has such a code and elects 

to use it in place of the 840 code). The 

alpha characters USA or the numeric 

code assigned to the manufacturer of the 

identification device by the 

International Committee on Animal 

Recording may be used as an alternative 

to the 840 or other prefix representing 

a U.S. territory; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 or other prefix 

representing a U.S. territory will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning 

with the 840 prefix may not be applied 

to animals known to have been born 

outside the United States. 

Approved livestock facility. A 

stockyard, livestock market, buying 

station, concentration point, or any 

other premises under State or Federal 

veterinary inspection where livestock 

are assembled and that has been 

approved under § 71.20 of this chapter. 

Approved tagging site. A premises, 

authorized by APHIS, State, or Tribal 

animal health officials, where livestock 

may be officially identified on behalf of 

their owner or the person in possession, 

care, or control of the animals when 

they are brought to the premises. 

Commuter herd. A herd of cattle or 

bison moved interstate during the 

course of normal livestock management 

operations and without change of 

ownership directly between two 

premises, as provided in a commuter 

herd agreement. 

Commuter herd agreement. A written 

agreement between the owner(s) of a 

herd of cattle or bison and the animal 

health officials for the States or Tribes 

of origin and destination specifying the 

conditions required for the interstate 

movement from one premises to another 

in the course of normal livestock 

management operations and specifying 

the time period, up to 1 year, that the 

agreement is effective. A commuter herd 

agreement may be renewed annually. 

Covered livestock. Cattle and bison, 

horses and other equine species, 

poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and 

captive cervids. 

Dairy cattle. All cattle, regardless of 

age or sex or current use, that are of a 

breed(s) used to produce milk or other 

dairy products for human consumption, 

including, but not limited to, Ayrshire, 

Brown Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, 

Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn, and Red 

and Whites. 

Directly. Moved in a means of 

conveyance, without stopping to unload 

while en route, except for stops of less 

than 24 hours to feed, water, or rest the 

animals being moved, and with no 

commingling of animals at such stops. 

Flock-based number system. The 

flock-based number system combines a 

flock identification number (FIN) with a 

producer’s unique livestock production 

numbering system to provide a 

nationally unique identification number 

for an animal. 

Flock identification number (FIN). A 

nationally unique number assigned by a 

State, Tribal, or Federal animal health 

authority to a group of animals that are 

managed as a unit on one or more 

premises and are under the same 

ownership. 

Group/lot identification number 

(GIN). The identification number used 

to uniquely identify a ‘‘unit of animals’’ 

of the same species that is managed 

together as one group throughout the 

preharvest production chain. When a 

GIN is used, it is recorded on 

documents accompanying the animals 

moving interstate; it is not necessary to 

have the GIN attached to each animal. 

Interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection (ICVI). An official document 

issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or 

accredited veterinarian certifying the 

inspection of animals in preparation for 

interstate movement. 

(a) The ICVI must show the species of 

animals covered by the ICVI; the 

number of animals covered by the ICVI; 

the purpose for which the animals are 

to be moved; the address at which the 

animals were loaded for interstate 

movement; the address to which the 

animals are destined; and the names of 

the consignor and the consignee and 

their addresses if different from the 

address at which the animals were 

loaded or the address to which the 

animals are destined. Additionally, 

unless the species-specific requirements 

for ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI 

must list the official identification 

number of each animal, except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, or group of animals moved 

that is required to be officially 

identified, or, if an alternative form of 

identification has been agreed upon by 

the sending and receiving States, the 

ICVI must include a record of that 

identification. If animals moving under 

a GIN also have individual official 

identification, only the GIN must be 

listed on the ICVI. An ICVI may not be 

issued for any animal that is not 

officially identified if official 

identification is required. If the animals 

are not required by the regulations to be 

officially identified, the ICVI must state 

the exemption that applies (e.g., the 

cattle and bison do not belong to one of 

the classes of cattle and bison to which 

the official identification requirements 

of this part apply). If the animals are 

required to be officially identified but 

the identification number does not have 

to be recorded on the ICVI, the ICVI 

must state that all animals to be moved 

under the ICVI are officially identified. 

(b) As an alternative to typing or 

writing individual animal identification 

on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving 

State or Tribe, another document may 

be used to provide this information, but 

only under the following conditions: 

(1) The document must be a State 

form or APHIS form that requires 

individual identification of animals or a 

printout of official identification 

numbers generated by computer or other 

means; 

(2) A legible copy of the document 

must be stapled to the original and each 

copy of the ICVI; 

(3) Each copy of the document must 

identify each animal to be moved with 

the ICVI, but any information pertaining 

to other animals, and any unused space 

on the document for recording animal 

identification, must be crossed out in 

ink; and 

(4) The following information must be 

written in ink in the identification 

column on the original and each copy 

of the ICVI and must be circled or 

boxed, also in ink, so that no additional 

information can be added: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) The name of the document; and 

(ii) Either the unique serial number on 

the document or, if the document is not 

imprinted with a serial number, both 

the name of the person who prepared 

the document and the date the 

document was signed. 

Interstate movement. From one State 

into or through any other State. 

Livestock. All farm-raised animals. 

Location-based numbering system. 

The location-based number system 

combines a State or Tribal issued 

location identification (LID) number or 

a premises identification number (PIN) 

with a producer’s unique livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. 

Location identification (LID) number. 

A nationally unique number issued by 

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal 

health authority to a location as 

determined by the State or Tribe in 

which it is issued. The LID number may 

be used in conjunction with a 

producer’s own unique livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. It may also be used as a 

component of a group/lot identification 

number (GIN). 

Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, 

ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or 

induce carrying, entering, importing, 

mailing, shipping, or transporting; to 

offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, 

or transport; to receive in order to carry, 

enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; or 

to allow any of these activities. 

National Uniform Eartagging System 

(NUES). A numbering system for the 

official identification of individual 

animals in the United States that 

provides a nationally unique 

identification number for each animal. 

Official eartag. An identification tag 

approved by APHIS that bears an 

official identification number for 

individual animals. Beginning March 

11, 2014, all official eartags 

manufactured must bear an official 

eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 

2015, all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear an official eartag 

shield. The design, size, shape, color, 

and other characteristics of the official 

eartag will depend on the needs of the 

users, subject to the approval of the 

Administrator. The official eartag must 

be tamper-resistant and have a high 

retention rate in the animal. 

Official eartag shield. The 

shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. Route 

Shield with ‘‘U.S.’’ or the State postal 

abbreviation or Tribal alpha code 

imprinted within the shield. 

Official identification device or 

method. A means approved by the 

Administrator of applying an official 

identification number to an animal of a 

specific species or associating an official 

identification number with an animal or 

group of animals of a specific species or 

otherwise officially identifying an 

animal or group of animals. 

Official identification number. A 

nationally unique number that is 

permanently associated with an animal 

or group of animals and that adheres to 

one of the following systems: 

(1) National Uniform Eartagging 

System (NUES). 

(2) Animal identification number 

(AIN). 

(3) Location-based number system. 

(4) Flock-based number system. 

(5) Any other numbering system 

approved by the Administrator for the 

official identification of animals. 

Officially identified. Identified by 

means of an official identification 

device or method approved by the 

Administrator. 

Owner-shipper statement. A statement 

signed by the owner or shipper of the 

livestock being moved stating the 

location from which the animals are 

moved interstate; the destination of the 

animals; the number of animals covered 

by the statement; the species of animal 

covered; the name and address of the 

owner at the time of the movement; the 

name and address of the shipper; and 

the identification of each animal, as 

required by the regulations, unless the 

regulations specifically provide that the 

identification does not have to be 

recorded. 

Person. Any individual, corporation, 

company, association, firm, partnership, 

society, or joint stock company, or other 

legal entity. 

Premises identification number (PIN). 

A nationally unique number assigned by 

a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal 

health authority to a premises that is, in 

the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/ 

or Federal animal health authority a 

geographically distinct location from 

other premises. The PIN may be used in 

conjunction with a producer’s own 

livestock production numbering system 

to provide a nationally unique and herdunique identification number for an 

animal. It may be used as a component 

of a group/lot identification number 

(GIN). 

Recognized slaughtering 

establishment. Any slaughtering facility 

operating under the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

the Poultry Products Inspection Act 

(21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or State meat 

or poultry inspection acts that is 

approved in accordance with 9 CFR 

71.21. 

United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. 

A backtag issued by APHIS that 

provides a temporary unique 

identification for each animal. 

§ 86.2 General requirements for 

traceability. 

(a) The regulations in this part apply 

only to covered livestock, as defined in 

§ 86.1. 

(b) No person may move covered 

livestock interstate or receive such 

livestock moved interstate unless the 

livestock meet all applicable 

requirements of this part. 

(c) The regulations in this part will 

apply to the movement of covered 

livestock onto and from Tribal lands 

only when the movement is an 

interstate movement; i.e., when the 

movement is across a State line. 

(d) In addition to meeting all 

applicable requirements of this part, all 

covered livestock moved interstate must 

be moved in compliance with all 

applicable provisions of APHIS program 

disease regulations (subchapter C of this 

chapter). 

(e) The interstate movement 

requirements in this part do not apply 

to the movement of covered livestock if: 

(1) The movement occurs entirely 

within Tribal land that straddles a State 

line and the Tribe has a separate 

traceability system from the States in 

which its lands are located; or 

(2) The movement is to a custom 

slaughter facility in accordance with 

Federal and State regulations for 

preparation of meat. 

§ 86.3 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) Official identification device 

distribution records. Any State, Tribe, 

accredited veterinarian, or other person 

or entity who distributes official 

identification devices must maintain for 

5 years a record of the names and 

addresses of anyone to whom the 

devices were distributed. 

(b) Interstate movement records. 

Approved livestock facilities must keep 

any ICVIs or alternate documentation 

that is required by this part for the 

interstate movement of covered 

livestock that enter the facility on or 

after March 11, 2013. For poultry and 

swine, such documents must be kept for 

at least 2 years, and for cattle and bison, 

sheep and goats, cervids, and equines, 5 

years. 

§ 86.4 Official identification. 

(a) Official identification devices and 

methods. The Administrator has 

approved the following official 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2073 

identification devices or methods for the 

species listed. The Administrator may 

authorize the use of additional devices 

or methods for a specific species if he 

or she determines that such additional 

devices or methods will provide for 

adequate traceability. 

(1) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison 

that are required to be officially 

identified for interstate movement 

under this part must be identified by 

means of: 

(i) An official eartag; or 

(ii) Brands registered with a 

recognized brand inspection authority 

and accompanied by an official brand 

inspection certificate, when agreed to by 

the shipping and receiving State or 

Tribal animal health authorities; or 

(iii) Tattoos and other identification 

methods acceptable to a breed 

association for registration purposes, 

accompanied by a breed registration 

certificate, when agreed to by the 

shipping and receiving State or/Tribal 

animal health authorities; or 

(iv) Group/lot identification when a 

group/lot identification number (GIN) 

may be used. 

(2) Horses and other equine species. 

Horses and other equine species that are 

required to be officially identified for 

interstate movement under this part 

must be identified by one of the 

following methods: 

(i) A description sufficient to identify 

the individual equine including, but not 

limited to, name, age, breed, color, 

gender, distinctive markings, and 

unique and permanent forms of 

identification when present (e.g., 

brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, 

blemishes or biometric measurements). 

When the identity of the equine is in 

question at the receiving destination, 

the State or Tribal animal health official 

in the State or Tribe of destination or 

APHIS representative may determine if 

the description provided is sufficient; or 

(ii) Electronic identification that 

complies with ISO 11784/11785; or 

(iii) Non-ISO electronic identification 

injected to the equine on or before 

March 11, 2014; or 

(iv) Digital photographs sufficient to 

identify the individual equine; or 

(v) For equines being commercially 

transported to slaughter, a device or 

method authorized by 88 of this chapter. 

(3) Poultry. Poultry that are required 

to be officially identified for interstate 

movement under this part must be 

identified by one of the following 

methods: 

(i) Sealed and numbered leg bands in 

the manner referenced in the National 

Poultry Improvement Plan regulations 

(parts 145 through 147 of this chapter); 

or 

(ii) Group/lot identification when a 

group/lot identification number (GIN) 

may be used. 

(4) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats 

that are required to be officially 

identified for interstate movement 

under this part must be identified by a 

device or method authorized by part 79 

of this chapter. 

(5) Swine. Swine that are required to 

be officially identified for interstate 

movement under this part must be 

identified by a device or method 

authorized by § 71.19 of this chapter. 

(6) Captive cervids. Captive cervids 

that are required to be officially 

identified for interstate movement 

under this part must be identified by a 

device or method authorized by part 77 

of this chapter. 

(b) Official identification 

requirements for interstate movement— 

(1) Cattle and bison. (i) All cattle and 

bison listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) 

through (b)(1)(iii)(D) of this section must 

be officially identified prior to the 

interstate movement, using an official 

identification device or method listed in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section unless: 

(A) The cattle and bison are moved as 

a commuter herd with a copy of the 

commuter herd agreement or other 

documents as agreed to by the shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes. If any of 

the cattle or bison are shipped to a State 

or Tribe not included in the commuter 

herd agreement or other documentation, 

then these cattle or bison must be 

officially identified and documented to 

the original State of origin. 

(B) The cattle and bison are moved 

directly from a location in one State 

through another State to a second 

location in the original State. 

(C) The cattle and bison are moved 

interstate directly to an approved 

tagging site and are officially identified 

before commingling with cattle and 

bison from other premises or identified 

by the use of backtags or other methods 

that will ensure that the identity of the 

animal is accurately maintained until 

tagging so that the official eartag can be 

correlated to the person responsible for 

shipping the animal to the approved 

tagging site. 

(D) The cattle and bison are moved 

between shipping and receiving States 

or Tribes with another form of 

identification, as agreed upon by animal 

health officials in the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes. 

(ii) Cattle and bison may also be 

moved interstate without official 

identification if they are moved directly 

to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment or directly to no more 

than one approved livestock facility and 

then directly to a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, where they 

are harvested within 3 days of arrival; 

and 

(A) They are moved interstate with a 

USDA-approved backtag; or 

(B) A USDA-approved backtag is 

applied to the cattle or bison at the 

recognized slaughtering establishment 

or federally approved livestock facility. 

(C) If a determination to hold the 

cattle or bison for more than 3 days is 

made after the animals arrive at the 

slaughter establishment, the animals 

must be officially identified in 

accordance with § 86.4(d)(4)(ii). 

(iii) Beginning on March 11, 2013, all 

cattle and bison listed below are subject 

to the official identification 

requirements of this section: 

(A) All sexually intact cattle and 

bison 18 months of age or over; 

(B) All female dairy cattle of any age 

and all dairy males born after March 11, 

2013; 

(C) Cattle and bison of any age used 

for rodeo or recreational events; and 

(D) Cattle and bison of any age used 

for shows or exhibitions. 

(2) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats 

moved interstate must be officially 

identified prior to the interstate 

movement unless they are exempt from 

official identification requirements 

under 9 CFR part 79 or are officially 

identified after the interstate movement, 

as provided in 9 CFR part 79. 

(3) Swine. Swine moving interstate 

must be officially identified in 

accordance with § 71.19 of this chapter. 

(4) Horses and other equines. Horses 

and other equines moving interstate 

moved interstate must be officially 

identified prior to the interstate 

movement, using an official 

identification device or method listed in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section unless: 

(i) They are used as the mode of 

transportation (horseback, horse and 

buggy) for travel to another location and 

then return direct to the original 

location. 

(ii) They are moved from the farm or 

stable for veterinary medical 

examination or treatment and returned 

to the same location without change in 

ownership. 

(iii) They are moved directly from a 

location in one State through another 

State to a second location in the original 

State. 

(iv) They are moved between shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes with 

another form of identification as agreed 

upon by animal health officials in the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 

(5) Poultry. Poultry moving interstate 

must be officially identified prior to 

interstate movement unless: 

(i) The shipment of poultry is from a 

hatchery to a redistributor or poultry 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2074 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

grower and the person responsible for 

receiving the shipment maintains a 

record of the supplier; or 

(ii) The shipment is from a 

redistributor to a poultry grower and the 

person responsible for receiving the 

chicks maintains a record of the 

supplier of the chicks; or 

(iii) The poultry are identified as 

agreed upon by the States or Tribes 

involved in the movement. 

(6) Captive cervids. Captive cervids 

moving interstate must be officially 

identified prior to interstate movement 

in accordance with part 77 of this 

chapter. 

(c) Use of more than one official 

eartag. Beginning on March 13, 2013, no 

more than one official eartag may be 

applied to an animal, except that: 

(1) Another official eartag may be 

applied providing it bears the same 

official identification number as an 

existing one. 

(2) In specific cases when the need to 

maintain the identity of an animal is 

intensified (e.g., such as for export 

shipments, quarantined herds, field 

trials, experiments, or disease surveys), 

a State or Tribal animal health official 

or an area veterinarian in charge may 

approve the application of an additional 

official eartag to an animal that already 

has one or more. The person applying 

the additional official eartag must 

record the following information about 

the event and maintain the record for 5 

years: The date the additional official 

eartag is added; the reason for the 

additional official eartag device; and the 

official identification numbers of both 

the new official eartag and the one(s) 

already attached to the animal. 

(3) An eartag with an animal 

identification number (AIN) beginning 

with the 840 prefix (either radio 

frequency identification or visual-only 

tag) may be applied to an animal that is 

already officially identified with one or 

more National Uniform Eartagging 

System tags and/or an official 

vaccination eartag used for brucellosis. 

The person applying the AIN eartag 

must record the date the AIN tag is 

added and the official identification 

numbers of both official eartags and 

must maintain those records for 5 years. 

(4) A brucellosis vaccination eartag 

with a National Uniform Eartagging 

System number may be applied in 

accordance with part 78 of this chapter 

to an animal that is already officially 

identified with one or more official 

eartags under this part. The person 

applying the vaccination eartag must 

record the date the tag is added and the 

official identification numbers of both 

the existing official eartag(s) and the 

vaccination eartag and must maintain 

those records for 5 years. 

(d) Removal or loss of official 

identification devices. (1) Official 

identification devices are intended to 

provide permanent identification of 

livestock and to ensure the ability to 

find the source of animal disease 

outbreaks. Removal of these devices, 

including devices applied to imported 

animals in their countries of origin and 

recognized by the Administrator as 

official, is prohibited except at the time 

of slaughter, at any other location upon 

the death of the animal, or as otherwise 

approved by the State or Tribal animal 

health official or an area veterinarian in 

charge when a device needs to be 

replaced. 

(2) All man-made identification 

devices affixed to covered livestock 

unloaded at slaughter plants after 

moving interstate must be removed at 

the slaughter facility by slaughterfacility personnel with the devices 

correlated with the animal and its 

carcass through final inspection or 

condemnation by means approved by 

the Food Safety Inspection Service 

(FSIS). If diagnostic samples are taken, 

the identification devices must be 

packaged with the samples and be 

correlated with the carcasses through 

final inspection or condemnation by 

means approved by FSIS. Devices 

collected at slaughter must be made 

available to APHIS and FSIS by the 

slaughter plant. 

(3) All official identification devices 

affixed to covered livestock carcasses 

moved interstate for rendering must be 

removed at the rendering facility and 

made available to APHIS. 

(4) If an animal loses an official 

identification device and needs a new 

one: (i) A replacement tag with a 

different official identification number 

may be applied. The person applying a 

new official identification device with a 

different official identification number 

must record the following information 

about the event and maintain the record 

for 5 years: The date the new official 

identification device was added; the 

official identification number on the 

device; and the official identification 

number on the old device if known. 

(ii) Replacement of a temporary 

identification device with a new official 

identification device is considered to be 

a retagging event, and all applicable 

information must be maintained in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(i) of 

this section. 

(iii) A duplicate replacement eartag 

with the official number of the lost tag 

may be applied in accordance with 

APHIS’ protocol for the administration 

of such tags. 

(e) Replacement of official 

identification devices for reasons other 

than loss. 

(1) Circumstances under which a 

State or Tribal animal health official or 

an area veterinarian in charge may 

authorize replacement of an official 

identification device include, but are 

not limited to: 

(i) Deterioration of the device such 

that loss of the device appears likely or 

the number can no longer be read; 

(ii) Infection at the site where the 

device is attached, necessitating 

application of a device at another 

location (e.g., a slightly different 

location of an eartag in the ear); 

(iii) Malfunction of the electronic 

component of a radio frequency 

identification (RFID) device; or 

(iv) Incompatibility or inoperability of 

the electronic component of an RFID 

device with the management system or 

unacceptable functionality of the 

management system due to use of an 

RFID device. 

(2) Any time an official identification 

device is replaced, as authorized by the 

State or Tribal animal health official or 

area veterinarian in charge, the person 

replacing the device must record the 

following information about the event 

and maintain the record for 5 years: 

(i) The date on which the device was 

removed; 

(ii) Contact information for the 

location where the device was removed; 

(iii) The official identification number 

(to the extent possible) on the device 

removed; 

(iv) The type of device removed (e.g., 

metal eartag, RFID eartag); 

(v) The reason for the removal of the 

device; 

(vi) The new official identification 

number on the replacement device; and 

(vii) The type of replacement device 

applied. 

(f) Sale or transfer of official 

identification devices. Official 

identification devices are not to be sold 

or otherwise transferred from the 

premises to which they were originally 

issued to another premises without 

authorization by the Administrator or a 

State or Tribal animal health official. 

§ 86.5 Documentation requirements for 

interstate movement of covered livestock. 

(a) The persons responsible for 

animals leaving a premises for interstate 

movement must ensure that the animals 

are accompanied by an interstate 

certificate of veterinary inspection 

(ICVI) or other document required by 

this part for the interstate movement of 

animals. 

(b)(1) The APHIS representative, State 

or Tribal representative, or accredited 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2075 

veterinarian issuing an ICVI or other 

document required for the interstate 

movement of animals under this part 

must forward a copy of the ICVI or other 

document to the State or Tribal animal 

health official of the State or Tribe of 

origin within 7 calendar days from the 

date on which the ICVI or other 

document is issued. The State or Tribal 

animal health official in the State or 

Tribe of origin must forward a copy of 

the ICVI or other document to the State 

or Tribal animal health official the State 

or Tribe of destination within 7 calendar 

days from date on which the ICVI or 

other document is received. 

(2) The animal health official or 

accredited veterinarian issuing or 

receiving an ICVI or other interstate 

movement document in accordance 

with paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

must keep a copy of the ICVI or 

alternate documentation. For poultry 

and swine, such documents must be 

kept for at least 2 years, and for cattle 

and bison, sheep and goats, cervids, and 

equines, 5 years. 

(c) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison 

moved interstate must be accompanied 

by an ICVI unless: 

(1) They are moved directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment, 

or directly to an approved livestock 

facility and then directly to a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, and they are 

accompanied by an owner-shipper 

statement. 

(2) They are moved directly to an 

approved livestock facility with an 

owner-shipper statement and do not 

move interstate from the facility unless 

accompanied by an ICVI. 

(3) They are moved from the farm of 

origin for veterinary medical 

examination or treatment and returned 

to the farm of origin without change in 

ownership. 

(4) They are moved directly from one 

State through another State and back to 

the original State. 

(5) They are moved as a commuter 

herd with a copy of the commuter herd 

agreement or other document as agreed 

to by the States or Tribes involved in the 

movement. 

(6) Additionally, cattle and bison may 

be moved between shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes with 

documentation other than an ICVI, e.g., 

a brand inspection certificate, as agreed 

upon by animal health officials in the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 

(7) The official identification number 

of cattle or bison must be recorded on 

the ICVI or alternate documentation 

unless: 

(i) The cattle or bison are moved from 

an approved livestock facility directly to 

a recognized slaughtering establishment; 

or 

(ii) The cattle and bison are sexually 

intact cattle or bison under 18 months 

of age or steers or spayed heifers; Except 

that: This exception does not apply to 

sexually intact dairy cattle of any age or 

to cattle or bison used for rodeo, 

exhibition, or recreational purposes. 

(d) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats 

moved interstate must be accompanied 

by documentation as required by part 79 

of this chapter. 

(e) Swine. Swine moved interstate 

must be accompanied by documentation 

in accordance with § 71.19 of this 

chapter or, if applicable, with part 85. 

(f) Horses and other equines. Horses 

and other equines moved interstate 

must be accompanied by an ICVI unless: 

(1) They are used as the mode of 

transportation (horseback, horse and 

buggy) for travel to another location and 

then return direct to the original 

location. 

(2) They are moved from the farm or 

stable for veterinary medical 

examination or treatment and returned 

to the same location without change in 

ownership. 

(3) They are moved directly from a 

location in one State through another 

State to a second location in the original 

State. 

(4) Additionally, equines may be 

moved between shipping and receiving 

States or Tribes with documentation 

other than an ICVI, e.g., an equine 

infectious anemia test chart, as agreed to 

by the shipping and receiving States or 

Tribes involved in the movement. 

(5) Equines moving commercially to 

slaughter must be accompanied by 

documentation in accordance with part 

88 of this chapter. Equine infectious 

anemia reactors moving interstate must 

be accompanied by documentation as 

required by part 75 of this chapter. 

(g) Poultry. Poultry moved interstate 

must be accompanied by an ICVI unless: 

(1) They are from a flock participating 

in the National Poultry Improvement 

Plan (NPIP) and are accompanied by the 

documentation required under the NPIP 

regulations (parts 145 through 147 of 

this chapter) for participation in that 

program; or 

(2) They are moved directly to a 

recognized slaughtering or rendering 

establishment; or 

(3) They are moved from the farm of 

origin for veterinary medical 

examination, treatment, or diagnostic 

purposes and either returned to the farm 

of origin without change in ownership 

or euthanized and disposed of at the 

veterinary facility; or 

(4) They are moved directly from one 

State through another State and back to 

the original State; or 

(5) They are moved between shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes with a VS 

Form 9–3 or documentation other than 

an ICVI, as agreed upon by animal 

health officials in the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes. 

(6) They are moved under permit in 

accordance with part 82 of this chapter. 

(h) Captive cervids. Captive cervids 

moved interstate must be accompanied 

by documentation as required by part 77 

of this chapter. 

§ 86.6 [Reserved] 

§ 86.7 [Reserved] 

§ 86.8 Preemption. 

State, Tribal, and local laws and 

regulations may not specify an official 

identification device or method that 

would have to be used if multiple 

devices or methods may be used under 

this part for a particular species, nor 

may the State or Tribe of destination 

impose requirements that would 

otherwise cause the State or Tribe from 

which the shipments originate to have 

to develop a particular kind of 

traceability system or change its existing 

system in order to meet the 

requirements of the State or Tribe of 

destination. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

December 2012. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31114 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with