50082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 90 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0091] 

RIN 0579–AD24 

Traceability for Livestock Moving 

Interstate 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to establish 

minimum national official identification 

and documentation requirements for the 

traceability of livestock moving 

interstate. Under this proposed rule, 

unless specifically exempted, livestock 

belonging to species covered by this 

rulemaking that are moved interstate 

would have to be officially identified 

and accompanied by an interstate 

certificate of veterinary inspection or 

other documentation. The proposed 

regulations specify approved forms of 

official identification for each species 

but would 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: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2009–0091, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

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

in our reading room, which is located in 

room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading 

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 690–2817 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Neil Hammerschmidt, Program 

Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

5571. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 

indispensible in emergency response 

and in ongoing disease control and 

eradication programs. 

We do not currently have a 

comprehensive animal traceability 

program. Some of our animal disease 

program regulations in 9 CFR 

subchapter C (‘‘Interstate Transportation 

of Animals (Including Poultry) and 

Animal Products,’’ referred to below as 

‘‘the existing regulations’’), such as 

those for tuberculosis and brucellosis, 

contain components of a traceability 

program, e.g., requirements for animals 

moving interstate to be officially 

identified and accompanied by 

documents recording, among other 

things, the animals’ official 

identification numbers and the locations 

from and to which they are being 

moved. Such requirements, however, do 

not apply to all livestock or to all 

interstate movements. Significant gaps 

exist that could impair our ability to 

trace animals, when necessary, that may 

be affected with a disease. Some 

species, or classes of animals within a 

species, are subject to official 

identification and/or movement 

requirements only under the existing 

animal disease program regulations. 

We are particularly concerned with 

current inadequacies in disease tracing 

capabilities in the cattle industry. 

Previously, many cattle received official 

identification through USDA’s 

vaccination program for brucellosis, 

which requires that certain young 

female cattle and bison (aged 4 to 12 

months) moving into and out of States 

or areas designated as Class B or Class 

C for brucellosis be vaccinated for the 

disease. These vaccinated calves must 

be permanently identified by means of 

a tattoo and either an official 

vaccination eartag or other official 

eartag if one is already attached to the 

animal (9 CFR part 78). Our eradication 

efforts have been tremendously 

successful, and now all 50 States are 

brucellosis-free. While this is certainly a 

positive development, it has resulted in 

a steep decline in the number of 

officially identified cattle. In 1988, 

when there were only 27 Class Free 

States and many more calves were 

subject to those requirements, 10 

million calves were officially identified, 

but by 2010 that number had fallen to 

3.1 million. 

As a result of decreasing levels of 

official identification in cattle, the time 

required to conduct other disease 

investigations is increasing. For 

example, disease investigations for 

bovine tuberculosis frequently now 

exceed 150 days as USDA and State 

investigative teams spend substantially 

more time and money in conducting 

tracebacks. The decreased level of 

official identification has resulted in an 

expansion of the scope of investigations 

to identify suspect and exposed 

animals, necessitating the testing of 

thousands of cattle that would 

otherwise not have needed to be tested. 

We have clear indications that higher 

levels of official identification enhance 

tracing capability. For example, through 

the National Scrapie Eradication 

Program (NSEP), 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, in particular 

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 

alleviate 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. 

The traceability framework we are 

proposing in this rule represents a 

departure from our initial attempt to 

address the problems described above 

through implementation of the National 

Animal Identification System (NAIS). 

NAIS was introduced in 2004 with the 

long-term goal of achieving 48-hour 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50083 

traceability. NAIS was a voluntary 

system, with registration of all premises 

where livestock or poultry were housed 

or kept as the foundation of the system. 

Additional components of NAIS, which 

were expected to evolve over time, were 

animal identification and the recording 

of animal movements. In 2009, APHIS 

launched a series of efforts to assess the 

level of acceptance of NAIS, including 

public listening sessions in 14 cities and 

a review of written comments submitted 

by the public. Although there was some 

support for NAIS, the vast majority of 

listening session participants and 

commenters were highly critical of the 

program and of USDA’s implementation 

efforts. Many commenters viewed the 

NAIS as a Government-imposed, ‘‘onesize-fits-all’’ approach to animal 

traceability. Producers were concerned 

about various issues, including having 

their data maintained in a Federal 

database and the cost of the technology 

that would be necessary to achieve the 

48-hour traceability goal. Overall, the 

feedback revealed that NAIS had 

become a barrier to achieving 

meaningful animal disease traceability 

in the United States in partnership with 

America’s producers. 

On February 5, 2010, the Secretary 

announced that the Department planned 

to take a new approach to animal 

disease traceability. This new approach 

was developed through input from a 

State-Tribal-Federal working group, 

Tribal consultations, discussions with 

producers and industry, and feedback 

received in seven public meetings held 

during the spring and summer of 2010. 

Our overall goal is to have an adaptable 

approach that will help us find animals 

associated with a disease quickly, focus 

our efforts on those animals, and 

minimize harm to producers. 

Overview of the Proposal 

We are proposing to establish 

minimum national official identification 

and documentation requirements for the 

traceability of livestock moving 

interstate. These requirements are 

intended to improve our ability to locate 

animals that may be infected with or 

exposed to a disease. Because USDA’s 

regulatory authority applies to interstate 

commerce, the requirements would not 

apply to movements within a State. 

They would also not apply to 

movements onto or from Tribal lands 

unless the movement is also an 

interstate movement. Additionally, in 

recognition of Tribal sovereignty, if a 

Tribe has its own system for identifying 

and tracing livestock, separate from 

those of a State, our requirements would 

not apply to movements entirely within 

that Tribal jurisdiction even if the 

movements cross a State line that goes 

through the Tribal lands. We also 

propose to exempt from the regulations 

livestock moved to a custom slaughter 

facility in accordance with Federal and 

State regulations for preparation of meat 

for personal consumption. 

The proposed requirements would 

apply to cattle and bison, sheep and 

goats, swine, horses and other equines, 

captive cervids (e.g., deer and elk), and 

poultry. The greatest gaps in 

identification and movement 

documentation requirements for 

traceability purposes in our current 

program disease regulations are for 

cattle. As noted above, due to the near 

eradication of brucellosis in cattle, the 

number of vaccinated heifers, which are 

required under the brucellosis 

regulations to be officially identified, 

has decreased, and in turn, there has 

been a significant decrease in the 

number of officially identified cattle. 

Therefore, our proposed regulations 

would contain new requirements for 

cattle. Because we have very limited 

program regulations for horses and other 

equines, our proposed regulations 

would also contain new requirements 

for equines. On the other hand, the 

traceability-related requirements in our 

existing program regulations for swine, 

sheep and goats, captive cervids, and 

commercial poultry are more 

comprehensive and, we believe, largely 

sufficient at this time. While we are 

proposing to cover those animals in this 

proposal, we have chosen, in most 

cases, to refer the reader to the 

identification and documentation 

requirements in those existing program 

regulations. Our proposal, however, 

would establish traceability 

requirements for poultry moved 

interstate to live bird markets. 

Our proposed traceability 

requirements would have two main 

elements. 

First, animals moved interstate would 

have to be officially identified. The 

methods and devices for identifying 

animals would vary by species, and 

within a species there may be multiple 

choices. For certain species, for example 

cattle and bison and sheep and goats, 

this would typically involve attaching 

an eartag with a unique official 

identification number to the animal. In 

some cases, most commonly with 

poultry and swine, animals that move 

through the production chain are 

identified as a group rather than by 

means of an individual eartag or other 

identifier being attached to each animal. 

The methods, devices, and numbering 

systems that we propose to recognize as 

official identification are those that 

would provide for effective traceability 

and that can be used nationwide. All 

States and Tribal jurisdictions would be 

required to accept all official 

identification methods proposed for 

each species. An example for cattle 

would be an eartag with a national 

uniform eartagging system (NUES) 

number. We recognize, however, that 

different identification methods may 

exist or evolve in specific parts of the 

country and that there may be situations 

where other forms of identification may 

be effective and preferred by producers. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow 

such identification to be used in lieu of 

official identification for livestock 

moved interstate when both the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

agree to its use. Additionally, because 

we recognize that there will be logistical 

challenges associated with officially 

identifying a significantly higher 

number of cattle for interstate 

movement, we plan to phase in the 

requirements for identification of cattle 

and bison over time. 

Second, animals moved interstate 

must be accompanied by an interstate 

certificate of veterinary inspection, also 

referred to as an ICVI. The ICVI would 

be issued by an accredited veterinarian 

(one authorized to perform work on 

behalf of the APHIS) or a Federal, State, 

or Tribal veterinarian, who would be 

responsible for ensuring that the animal 

meets applicable health requirements. 

The ICVI would, for certain classes of 

animals, show the official identification 

number of the animal. It would also 

contain information about where the 

animal is moving from and its 

destination. 

We are proposing some exceptions to 

the requirements for an ICVI. For 

example, for cattle moving interstate 

directly to slaughter, we propose to 

allow use of an owner-shipper 

statement, rather than an ICVI. 

Additionally, we are proposing to allow 

alternatives to the ICVI for livestock 

moved interstate when both the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

agree. We are also proposing some 

exceptions to the requirement for 

recording animal identification numbers 

on ICVIs (e.g., for steers and spayed 

heifers). 

These proposed identification and 

movement documentation requirements 

are the foundation for a successful 

traceability program. 

We are also proposing some 

associated recordkeeping requirements. 

All of the specific requirements and 

exceptions we are proposing are 

explained in detail below in a sectionby-section discussion of the proposed 

rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50084 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The purpose of the requirements we 

are proposing is to improve our ability 

to trace livestock in the event that 

disease is found. It is important to point 

out, though, that we do not prescribe 

methods or systems that States and 

Tribes must use in order to trace 

animals that have moved interstate. We 

expect that States (and interested 

Tribes) will set up systems to allow 

effective tracing of animals that have 

moved into or from their jurisdictions. 

To enable us to evaluate the 

effectiveness of those systems, we 

anticipate that we will eventually 

establish traceability performance 

standards against which we could 

measure a State or Tribe’s ability to 

trace covered livestock moved 

interstate. Later in this preamble, under 

the respective headings ‘‘Performance 

Standards for Traceability’’ and 

‘‘Traceability Evaluations of States and 

Tribes,’’ we discuss our current thinking 

regarding performance standards for 

measuring a State’s or Tribe’s ability to 

trace covered livestock moved interstate 

and the potential actions that could be 

taken when a State or Tribe fails to meet 

the standards for a particular species. 

We are not proposing any regulatory 

requirements pertaining to those issues 

at this time; any such requirements 

would be established through a future, 

separate rulemaking. At this time, 

however, we would welcome public 

comment on our current thinking 

regarding the traceability performance 

standards. 

To facilitate the implementation of 

our new animal traceability approach, 

APHIS intends to consult with an 

advisory group featuring representation 

from APHIS, States, Tribes, and 

industry before we make a decision. The 

advisory group could offer advice and 

recommendations on our phase-in of 

official identification requirements for 

cattle and bison (discussed in more 

detail below) before we make a decision, 

as well as provide feedback on the 

effectiveness of various elements of the 

traceability program. 

Definitions (§ 90.1) 

Our proposed animal traceability 

requirements would be contained in a 

new 9 CFR part 90. The proposed 

regulations would include a number of 

new definitions pertaining to animal 

traceability. In addition, some 

definitions from the existing regulations 

would be incorporated into proposed 

part 90, in some cases as they are and 

in others, in modified form. Most of 

these proposed definitions are discussed 

below, by category (identification, 

documentation, movement, and 

miscellaneous). In a few cases, however, 

proposed definitions are discussed later 

in this preamble as the terms are used, 

in order to provide needed context. 

Definitions Pertaining to Official 

Identification 

Official eartags are used for official 

identification of a number of species 

under the existing regulations and 

would continue to be under these 

proposed traceability regulations. The 

existing interstate movement and 

animal disease program regulations 

define official eartag in a number of 

places. We propose to define official 

eartag in part 90 as an identification tag 

approved by APHIS that bears an 

official identification number for 

individual animals. The proposed 

definition further states that, beginning 

1 year after the effective date of the final 

rule for this proposed rule, all official 

eartags applied to animals must bear the 

U.S. shield. The design, size, shape, 

color, and other characteristics of the 

official eartag would depend on the 

needs of the users, subject to the 

approval of the Administrator. The 

official eartag would have to be tamperresistant and have a high retention rate 

in the animal. This proposed definition 

of official eartag is similar to the one 

used in § 71.1 and elsewhere in the 

existing regulations. The current 

definition in § 71.1, however, requires 

that the U.S. shield be used only on 

eartags bearing an animal identification 

number (AIN) with an 840 prefix. We 

are proposing to broaden the U.S. shield 

requirement to all official eartags to 

achieve greater standardization of this 

type of official identification device. 

The delay in the effective date of the 

U.S. shield requirement is intended to 

ease the transition and allow producers 

time to run through existing stocks of 

eartags. 

We propose to define officially 

identified as identified by means of an 

official identification device or method 

approved by the Administrator. The 

proposed definition is similar to the 

definition of officially identified in 9 

CFR 77.2 but is intended to provide a 

more uniform definition that could 

eventually be applied throughout the 

existing regulations as well. 

Further, we propose to define official 

identification device or method as 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. 

This proposed definition is adapted 

from the existing one in § 71.1, where 

official identification device or method 

is defined as a means of officially 

identifying an animal or group of 

animals using devices or methods 

approved by the Administrator, 

including, but not limited to, official 

tags, tattoos, and registered brands when 

accompanied by a certificate of 

inspection from a recognized brand 

inspection authority. Our proposed 

definition of official identification 

device or method is intended to 

establish minimum, uniform national 

requirements and does not include a list 

of examples, since not all the devices or 

methods listed under the existing 

definition in § 71.1 would be accepted 

as official for all species under these 

proposed regulations. (Official 

identification devices and methods 

would be listed by species under 

proposed § 90.4 of these regulations.) 

For cattle and bison, for example, for 

reasons discussed in greater detail 

below, the only identification device we 

would recognize as official would be 

official eartags. However, these 

proposed regulations would allow 

brands and other methods that are not 

included in the proposed definition of 

official identification device or method 

to be used in lieu of official 

identification when agreed to by the 

shipping and receiving States and 

Tribes. The use of brands and other 

identification methods in lieu of official 

identification is discussed in more 

detail later in this document. Finally, 

for the sake of consistency, i.e., to 

eliminate any possible conflict between 

our proposed traceability regulations 

and the existing ones, we would also 

amend the definition of official 

identification device or method in § 71.1 

and in the tuberculosis and brucellosis 

regulations, as discussed below, to 

match the one we are proposing here. 

As stated above, the intended use of 

an official identification device or 

method is to apply an official 

identification number to an individual 

animal or to associate such a number 

with a group of animals. We propose to 

define official identification number as 

a nationally unique number 

permanently associated with an animal 

or group of animals. The official 

identification number would have to 

adhere to one of the following systems, 

most of which are already in use: 

• National Uniform Eartagging 

System (NUES). 

• Animal identification number 

(AIN). 

• Location-based number system. 

• Flock-based number system. 

• Any other numbering system 

approved by the Administrator for the 

official identification of animals. 

We further propose in these 

regulations to provide definitions of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50085 

these numbering systems. Those 

definitions are discussed below. 

NUES 

The existing interstate movement 

regulations in 9 CFR part 71 and the 

animal disease regulations in parts 77, 

78, 79, and 80 allow for the use of the 

NUES as a means of identifying 

individual animals in commerce. The 

system has been in use for many years, 

but the existing regulations do not 

define the term or specify a particular 

format. To allow for the use of this 

numbering system under these proposed 

animal traceability regulations and to 

ensure greater standardization and 

uniformity of the NUES, we are 

proposing to add a definition of the term 

to the new animal traceability part. We 

would define National Uniform 

Eartagging System (NUES) as a 

numbering system for the official 

identification of individual animals in 

the United States that provides a 

nationally unique identification number 

for each animal. Formatting 

requirements for the NUES (and other 

numbering systems) would be set out in 

our Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards Document, which we would 

make available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability. 

AIN 

We propose to include in part 90 a 

definition of animal identification 

number (AIN), which we would adapt 

from the existing definition of the term 

in 9 CFR 71.1. We propose to define the 

AIN, as we do in § 71.1, as a numbering 

system for the official identification of 

individual animals in the United States 

that provides a nationally unique 

identification number for each animal. 

Under the proposed definition, the AIN 

would consist 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 could be used as alternatives 

to the 840 prefix until 1 year after the 

effective date of the final rule for this 

proposal. The existing definition lists 

the same formatting requirements but 

does not specify a sunset date for the 

use of AINs beginning with the 

characters USA or the manufacturer’s 

code. We are proposing 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 and so they can work through 

existing inventories of eartags. This 

proposed requirement would apply only 

to animals tagged 1 year or more after 

the effective date of the final rule for 

this proposal; producers would not have 

to retag animals that had been officially 

identified using the USA or 

manufacturer’s code AIN prior to that 

date. As is now the case, the AIN 

beginning with the 840 prefix would be 

recognized for use only on animals born 

in the United States. Also, like the 

existing definition of the AIN, the 

proposed definition does not require 

producers to use the AIN; we would 

continue to recognize other numbering 

systems as official for the identification 

of individual animals. 

Location Identifiers 

The existing regulations, e.g., in parts 

77 and 78, allow for the use of premisesbased numbering systems on official 

eartags. Such numbering systems 

combine an official premises 

identification number (PIN), discussed 

below, with a producer’s livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a unique identification number. 

Numbering systems using a PIN and a 

producer’s production numbering 

system would continue to be allowed 

under this proposed rule, but we would 

expand the range of allowable location 

identifiers. In keeping with our goal of 

letting States and Tribes develop 

traceability systems that work best for 

them, we would allow them to 

determine, according to their needs, the 

location to which animals moving from 

their jurisdictions would have to be 

associated. The proposed traceability 

regulations, therefore, do not refer to 

premises-based numbering systems but 

instead include a definition of locationbased numbering system. Under this 

proposed definition, a location-based 

numbering system could combine either 

a State- or Tribal-issued location 

identification number (LID number) or a 

PIN with a producer’s unique livestock 

production numbering system to 

provide a nationally and herd-unique 

identification number for an animal. 

We propose to define location 

identification (LID) number 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 proposed, the LID 

number could 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 could also be used as a 

component of a group/lot identification 

number (GIN), which is described 

below. Formatting requirements for the 

LID would be contained in our Animal 

Disease Traceability General Standards 

Document. 

Since the PIN could be used as a 

component of a location-based 

numbering system, we are including a 

definition of premises identification 

number (PIN) in this proposed rule. We 

propose to define the PIN as 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 could be used 

in conjunction with a producer’s own 

livestock production numbering system 

to provide a nationally and herd-unique 

identification number for an animal. It 

could be used as a component of a 

group/lot identification number (GIN), 

which is discussed below. The proposed 

definition of the PIN is similar to that 

used elsewhere in the existing 

regulations but would not include 

number and letter formatting 

requirements (e.g., the State’s two-letter 

postal abbreviation followed by the 

premises’ assigned number, as is 

currently the case). The formatting 

requirements for the PIN would be 

contained in the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

Document. 

GIN 

The GIN, referred to above, provides 

a means of identifying groups of animals 

when individual animal identification is 

not required. Existing regulations allow 

for the identification of groups of 

animals of some species under certain 

conditions. The regulations in 9 CFR 

71.19, which contain identification 

requirements for swine moving in 

interstate commerce, offer one such 

example. Adapting an existing 

definition of the GIN in § 71.1, we 

propose to define group/lot 

identification number (GIN) in this 

proposed rule as 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. The proposed definition also 

specifies that when a GIN is used, it 

must be recorded on documents 

accompanying the animals; it would 

not, however, be necessary to have the 

GIN attached to each animal. This last 

provision is a new one, not present in 

the current definition in § 71.1, and is 

in keeping with the purpose of allowing 

animals of certain species to be 

identified by group or lot rather than 

individually. Additionally, while the 

definition of the GIN in § 71.1 includes 

detailed formatting requirements, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50086 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

propose to remove them from the 

regulations and place them in the 

Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards Document, as we are 

proposing to do with the requirements 

for the PIN. 

FIN 

At this time, the NSEP furnishes 

eartags to sheep and goat producers that 

bear a number that combines a unique 

flock identification number (FIN) with 

the producer’s unique livestock 

production number. This flock-based 

number represents an animal group that 

is associated with one or more locations. 

This flock-based number system serves 

the sheep and goat industries well in 

their disease control and eradication 

efforts. The existing regulations in part 

79, however, while allowing for the use 

of the system on eartags for sheep and 

goats in the NSEP, do not define flockbased number system or FIN and do not 

specify a particular format to be used. 

Therefore, to codify current practices 

and help ensure uniformity and 

consistency in the use of flock 

identification numbering, we are 

proposing to define both these terms. 

We propose to define flock 

identification number (FIN) as 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. Formatting requirements 

would be listed in the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

Document. We propose to define flockbased number system as a numbering 

system combining a FIN with a 

producer’s livestock production 

numbering system to provide a 

nationally unique identification number 

for an animal. 

Definitions Pertaining to Documentation 

Under our existing interstate 

movement (9 CFR part 71) and animal 

disease program regulations (e.g., 9 CFR 

parts 77, 78, and 79), animals that are 

neither disease reactors nor exposed are 

generally required to be accompanied by 

certificates when moving interstate. The 

term certificate is defined in a number 

of places in those regulations. Among 

those definitions, however, there exists 

some variation according to species 

regarding information requirements and 

the use of the document. In addition, 

there is not a uniform requirement that 

certificates be issued by veterinarians. 

The proposed addition of the ICVI to the 

regulations, therefore, is intended to 

provide a standardized document, 

issued by a veterinarian, for the 

interstate movement of animals. We 

would add definitions of the ICVI to 

these proposed traceability regulations, 

as well as to part 71 and to the 

tuberculosis (9 CFR part 77) and 

brucellosis (9 CFR part 78) regulations. 

Further, we would amend the 

tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations, 

as discussed in detail below, so that the 

use of ICVIs would replace the use of 

certificates in parts 77 and 78. The ICVI 

would have to be issued by a 

veterinarian because, among other 

things, it would certify that a veterinary 

inspection has in fact taken place. Our 

requirements for veterinary 

accreditation are contained in 9 CFR 

parts 160 and 161. 

We are proposing, then, to define 

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 further lists the information 

requirements for the ICVI. The ICVI 

must show the species of animals 

covered by the ICVI; the number of 

animals covered; 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 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 or Tribes, 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. 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 are of 

a class of cattle and bison exempted 

during the initial stage of the phase-in). 

For those categories of animals required 

to be officially identified but whose 

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. An 

ICVI may not be issued for any animal 

that is not officially identified if official 

identification is required. 

As an alternative to typing or writing 

individual animal identification on an 

ICVI, another document may be used to 

provide this information, but only under 

the following conditions: 

• The document must be a State form 

or APHIS form that requires individual 

identification of animals; 

• A legible copy of the document 

must be stapled to the original and each 

copy of the ICVI; 

• 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 

• 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: 

Æ The name of the document; and 

Æ 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. 

The information requirements for the 

ICVI are closely modeled upon 

requirements for certificates in § 78.1 of 

the brucellosis regulations. These 

proposed requirements are necessary to 

provide States, Tribes, and APHIS with 

adequate information to conduct 

successful traceback investigations. 

In certain cases, we would allow for 

the use of an owner-shipper statement 

in lieu of an ICVI. We propose to define 

owner-shipper statement as 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. The proposed information 

requirements enumerated under this 

definition are incorporated from 

existing regulations pertaining to 

identification of cattle for interstate 

movement in § 71.18. 

Definitions Pertaining to Interstate 

Movement 

Because these proposed regulations 

concern the movement of animals 

interstate, it is necessary to include a 

definition of interstate movement. We 

would define interstate movement as a 

movement from one State into or 

through any other State. This proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50087 

definition is taken from the definition of 

interstate currently used in our 

tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations 

in 9 CFR parts 77 and 78, respectively. 

We propose to define the term move 

as 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. This 

proposed definition is incorporated 

from the Animal Health Protection Act, 

minus a provision concerning release 

into the environment that is not 

applicable to animal traceability. 

As will be discussed later in this 

document, movement and 

documentation requirements may differ 

in some cases, depending on whether or 

not an animal is moved directly to a 

particular destination. For that reason, it 

is necessary to include a definition of 

directly. We would define 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. 

This proposed definition has been 

adapted from the existing one in § 78.1 

but modified to allow for stops needed 

to care for the animals in the shipment. 

Not only the nature of an animal’s 

interstate movement (directly or 

otherwise) but also the destination to 

which it is moved may affect the 

requirements governing such 

movement. Specifically, as discussed in 

greater detail later in this document, we 

would provide exemptions from the 

requirement for official identification 

for cattle and bison moved interstate 

directly to an approved livestock facility 

or recognized slaughtering 

establishment. It is necessary, for the 

sake of clarity, to include in this 

proposed rule definitions of such 

facilities. We propose to define 

approved livestock facility as 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. This proposed 

definition matches the existing one in 

§ 71.1. We propose to define recognized 

slaughtering establishment 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. 

This proposed definition is based on the 

definitions of the term used elsewhere 

in the existing regulations. 

Miscellaneous Definitions 

As noted above in our overview 

section, these proposed regulations 

would only apply to certain species of 

livestock: Cattle and bison, sheep and 

goats, swine, horses and other equines, 

captive cervids, and poultry. We 

propose, therefore, to include in this 

proposed rule a new definition of 

covered livestock that would simply list 

those species. 

Some of the proposed definitions 

discussed above, e.g., approved 

livestock facility, refer to livestock more 

generally. Species that could be present 

at such a facility would not necessarily 

be limited to those covered under this 

rulemaking. It is necessary, therefore, to 

include a definition of livestock in this 

proposed rule. We propose to define 

livestock as all farm-raised animals. 

This proposed definition comes from 

the Animal Health Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 8302). 

In the overview section of this 

preamble, we referred to our plans to 

phase in official identification 

requirements for cattle and bison. As 

discussed in greater detail below, cattle 

and bison associated with greater risk of 

contracting and spreading disease 

would be subject to the official 

identification requirements before those 

associated with lesser risk. The former 

category includes sexually intact cattle 

and bison 18 months of age or over, 

dairy cattle, and cattle and bison used 

for rodeos, recreational events, shows, 

or exhibitions. While most of these 

designations are self-explanatory, that of 

dairy cattle is not. We are therefore 

including in this proposed rule a 

definition of dairy cattle. Under this 

proposed definition, 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 would be 

considered dairy cattle. We propose to 

define dairy cattle in such an inclusive 

manner because both male and female 

calves are often moved from birth 

premises and managed at multiple 

locations. The movement and 

commingling of dairy calves and the 

associated risk of disease exposure and 

spread warrant the official identification 

of all dairy animals. 

General Requirements for Traceability 

(§ 90.2) 

Under these proposed regulations, no 

person (a term we propose to define, 

using a standard definition employed 

elsewhere in the regulations, as any 

individual, corporation, company, 

association, firm, partnership, society, 

or joint stock company, or other legal 

entity) could move covered livestock 

interstate or receive such livestock 

moved interstate unless the livestock 

meet all applicable requirements of the 

traceability regulations. We consider 

these proposed requirements, which are 

discussed in detail later in this 

document, to be the minimum necessary 

for a successful animal traceability 

program. 

In addition to these proposed 

traceability requirements, all covered 

livestock moving interstate would 

continue to be subject to existing 

disease control and eradication program 

regulations, e.g., for tuberculosis, 

brucellosis, etc., in 9 CFR subchapter C. 

While this proposed rule would 

establish minimum traceability 

requirements, the disease program 

regulations may contain additional, or 

more specific, requirements necessary to 

control or eliminate livestock diseases. 

It is not our intention to loosen those 

disease program requirements; hence, 

they would be given precedence if they 

were to conflict in any way with the 

general traceability requirements being 

proposed here. 

There are two circumstances when 

the traceability requirements would not 

apply to interstate movement of covered 

livestock: 

• 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 

• The movement is to a custom 

slaughter facility in accordance with 

Federal and State regulations for 

preparation of meat for personal 

consumption. 

Under this rulemaking, Tribal lands, 

whether entirely within a State or 

straddling State lines, would be covered 

by the same traceability system as the 

State or States within which they are 

contained, unless the Tribal 

representatives choose to have their 

own traceability system separate from 

the State(s). If a Tribal land straddling 

a State line does have a separate 

traceability system from the States in 

which it is contained, then, because of 

Tribal sovereignty, livestock movements 

taking place entirely within that Tribal 

land, even across State lines, would not 

be regarded as interstate movement 

under our regulations. Therefore, the 

proposed traceability requirements for 

interstate movement would not apply. 

We do not deem it necessary to apply 

our proposed traceability requirements 

to interstate movement of covered 

livestock to a custom slaughter facility 

under the conditions described above. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Such animals are accurately identified 

so the meat products are properly 

provided to the owner or person 

responsible. Therefore, those animals 

are already highly traceable to the farm 

or other location from which the 

animals were moved to the slaughter 

facility. 

Recordkeeping Requirements (§ 90.3) 

As we have noted, we are proposing 

in these regulations to require that, with 

certain exceptions, covered livestock 

moving interstate be officially identified 

and accompanied by an ICVI or other 

movement document. This proposed 

rule would require that any State, Tribe, 

accredited veterinarian, or other person 

or entity who distributes official 

identification devices maintain for a 

minimum of 5 years a record of the 

names and addresses of anyone to 

whom the devices were distributed. We 

would also require that approved 

livestock facilities keep for a minimum 

of 5 years any ICVIs or alternate 

documentation used in lieu of an ICVI 

for covered livestock that enter the 

facilities. Our proposed 5-year 

requirement for maintaining records of 

official identification devices and ICVIs 

or other animal movement documents is 

necessary because certain animal 

diseases, such as tuberculosis and 

bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 

have very long latency or incubation 

periods, which can make traceback 

efforts quite challenging. Such diseases 

may not manifest themselves until an 

animal reaches adulthood, possibly 

several years after it was officially 

identified and/or moved interstate. The 

proposed recordkeeping requirements 

would enhance our ability to conduct 

traceback investigations of infected and 

exposed animals, even in cases where 

the disease that the animal has 

contracted or been exposed to has a very 

long latency period. We request 

comment on the burden and practical 

utility of this proposed requirement. 

Official Identification (§ 90.4) 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods 

We will now discuss how persons 

moving covered livestock interstate may 

comply with the proposed requirement 

that such livestock bear official 

identification. Please note that, in order 

to provide flexibility, the Administrator 

could authorize the use of additional 

devices or methods of identification if 

they would provide for effective 

traceability. 

In this proposed rule, official 

identification devices or methods 

approved by the Administrator for use 

on covered livestock moving interstate 

are listed by species. (They would also 

be listed in our Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

Document.) These requirements are 

described in detail below. Listing 

official identification methods by 

species provides clarity to livestock 

owners so they know what official 

identification options are accepted for 

the movement of their animals 

anywhere in the United States. 

It is our intention that any device or 

method authorized by the proposed 

regulations as official identification for 

a species be accepted by any destination 

State or Tribe. Therefore, only those 

identification devices or methods that 

are available throughout the United 

States for a given species would be 

listed as official under the proposed 

regulations, and some identification 

practices that may be used regionally 

would not be listed, though we may 

allow them to be used in lieu of official 

identification. 

Branding of cattle and bison is one 

prominent example of an identification 

method that would not be listed as 

official identification for cattle and 

bison under the proposed regulations 

but would be allowed to be employed in 

lieu of official identification. If we were 

to list brands as a means of official 

identification, all States would have to 

accept animals identified with brands 

into their jurisdictions. At this time, 

however, 36 States do not have brand 

inspection authorities, so brands would 

not be suitable for listing as a means of 

official identification. Yet, recognizing 

the value of brands and their prevalence 

in the western United States, the 

proposed rule does provide sufficient 

flexibility to allow for the use of brands 

on covered livestock moving interstate 

in lieu of official identification when 

brands are acceptable to both the 

shipping and receiving State or Tribe. 

This provision for use of alternative 

means of identification would apply to 

all other identification practices, 

including tattoos, breed registries, etc., 

that States and Tribes may elect to use 

instead of the official identification 

methods listed under these proposed 

regulations, provided that they are 

acceptable to both the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes. 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods for Cattle and Bison 

While the existing regulations 

recognize a number of means of 

identification, such as eartags, backtags, 

tattoos, and brands, as official for use on 

cattle and bison moving interstate, we 

are proposing to recognize eartags as the 

only device that may be used for the 

official identification of individual 

cattle and bison. Official eartags provide 

a simple means of uniquely identifying 

the animal. Eartags are a more 

permanent means of identification than 

backtags, which may come off the 

animal, and provide greater readability 

and ease of recording than do tattoos. In 

addition to individual identification of 

cattle and bison by means of official 

eartags, we propose to provide for the 

use of GINs when cattle and bison are 

eligible for interstate movement using 

group/lot identification. The GIN 

provides identification for the entire 

group of animals. As we have already 

noted, the number itself does not need 

to be attached to each individual 

animal. 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods for Equines 

Equines would have to be identified 

by one of the following methods: 

• A description sufficient to identify 

the individual equine, as determined by 

a State or Tribal animal health official 

in the State or Tribe of destination, or 

APHIS representative, 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, or 

blemishes); or 

• Electronic identification that 

complies with ISO 11784/11785 (ISO 

11784 defines the code structure of the 

number which is embedded in the 

transponder’s microchip. ISO 11785 

defines the technical specifications of 

how the transceiver communicates with 

the transponder.); or 

• Digital photographs of the equine 

sufficient to identify the individual 

equine, as determined by a State or 

Tribal animal health official in the State 

or Tribe of destination, or APHIS 

representative; or 

• For equines being commercially 

transported for slaughter, a USDA 

backtag authorized by part 88 of this 

chapter. 

The identification devices and 

methods listed above are all currently 

used on horses and other equine species 

in the United States and can provide for 

adequate traceability when they are 

moved interstate. 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods for Poultry 

Poultry would have to be identified 

either by means of a GIN, or with sealed 

and numbered leg bands. These 

identification methods are consistent 

with those required for poultry flocks 

participating in the National Poultry 

Improvement Plan (NPIP) regulations (9 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50089 

CFR parts 145 through 147), and thus 

would not represent a change for most 

poultry producers. 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods for Sheep and Goats 

Currently, official identification 

devices or methods approved by the 

Administrator for sheep and goats 

required to be officially identified for 

interstate movement are listed in the 

scrapie regulations in 9 CFR 79.2.(a). 

These include electronic implants, 

official eartags, USDA backtags, official 

registry tattoos, premises identification 

eartags, and any other device or method 

approved by the Administrator. The 

process for approving official 

identification tags and new 

identification types for sheep or goats is 

described in § 79.2(f) and (g), 

respectively. This proposed rule would 

not change any of those requirements. 

We would simply refer the reader to 

part 79. 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods for Swine 

Currently, official identification 

devices or methods approved by the 

Administrator for swine needing to be 

officially identified for interstate 

movement are listed in § 71.19. These 

include official eartags, USDA backtags, 

official swine tattoos and other tattoos, 

ear notching, and any other device or 

method approved by the Administrator. 

As is the case for sheep and goats, this 

proposed rule would not change those 

requirements, since, in our view, they 

already provide for adequate 

traceability. We would refer the reader 

to § 71.19. 

Official Identification Devices and 

Methods for Captive Cervids 

Interstate movement requirements for 

captive cervids are currently included 

in the tuberculosis regulations in part 

77. Except for captive cervids from 

accredited-free States or zones, all 

captive cervids moving interstate are 

required under part 77 to be officially 

identified. As discussed in detail below, 

we are proposing in this document to 

amend part 77 to align the requirements 

in that part with our proposed 

traceability requirements. To avoid 

redundancy, this proposed rule would 

simply state that captive cervids that are 

required to be officially identified under 

these proposed regulations for interstate 

movement must be identified by a 

device or method authorized by part 77. 

It should be noted that captive cervids 

moved interstate from an accredited-free 

State or zone would not be exempted 

from official identification requirements 

under the traceability regulations. As 

discussed further below, we would also 

amend part 77 to indicate that such 

captive cervids would be subject to the 

traceability requirements and thus not 

exempted from the requirement that 

they be officially identified in order to 

move interstate. 

Official Identification Requirements for 

Interstate Movement 

In the paragraphs that follow, we 

discuss proposed requirements for each 

species of covered livestock pertaining 

to aspects of official identification other 

than the devices or methods themselves. 

Included in this section are 

requirements for when covered 

livestock must be officially identified 

for interstate movement and, in some 

cases, other administrative requirements 

pertaining to official identification. 

When Cattle and Bison Must Be 

Officially Identified 

With certain exceptions, cattle and 

bison moved interstate would have to be 

officially identified prior to the 

interstate movement using one of the 

official identification devices or 

methods previously discussed. These 

exceptions, which include the use, in 

lieu of official identification, of devices 

or methods agreed to by the shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes, are 

discussed in detail in the paragraphs 

that follow. 

An exception would be made for 

cattle and bison moving interstate as 

part of a commuter herd with a copy of 

the commuter herd agreement. In this 

proposed rule, we define 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. We propose 

to define commuter herd agreement as 

a written agreement between the 

owner(s) of a herd of cattle or bison and 

the animal health officials for the States 

and/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 

would be subject to annual renewal. 

Meeting commuter-herd requirements in 

lieu of official identification 

requirements would still provide 

adequate traceability in our view. 

We would also provide an exception 

from the requirement for official 

identification prior to interstate 

movement for cattle and bison moved 

directly from one State through another 

State and back to the original State. This 

exception would allow for movement 

without official identification in cases 

where State borders are configured such 

that a truck containing cattle or bison 

would pass through a second State 

when moving the animals to a second 

location within the State of origin. An 

example of this type of movement 

would be a shipment of cattle 

originating at a location in Texas and 

passing through Oklahoma territory en 

route to a second location in Texas. 

Because the animals would not exit the 

truck en route and therefore would not 

be commingled with other animals, we 

do not view official identification of the 

individual animals in the shipment as 

necessary. 

Cattle and bison would also be 

allowed to move interstate without 

being officially identified prior to the 

movement if the interstate movement is 

directly to an approved tagging site, 

provided that the cattle and bison are 

officially identified there before they are 

commingled with cattle and bison from 

other premises. In this proposed rule, 

we define approved tagging site as a 

premises, authorized by APHIS or State 

or Tribal animal health officials, where 

livestock can 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. Such sites would afford 

producers a safe and convenient 

alternative, not provided for in the 

existing regulations, to identifying their 

animals themselves. This proposed 

exception is intended to allow 

producers to take advantage of this 

alternative when they are unable to tag 

animals at their farm or ranch. 

As discussed earlier, we would also 

allow cattle and bison to move interstate 

without using one of the types of official 

identification specifically approved for 

that purpose under these proposed 

regulations by the Administrator if the 

cattle and bison are moved between 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes 

with another form of identification, 

including but not limited to brands, 

tattoos, and breed registry certificates, as 

agreed upon by animal health officials 

in the shipping and receiving States or 

Tribes. In such situations, the shipping 

and receiving States or Tribes would 

determine whether that other form of 

identification is sufficient to enable the 

States or Tribes to meet their own 

traceability needs. This exemption is in 

keeping with our goal of allowing 

sufficient flexibility for States and 

Tribes to employ the traceability options 

that work best for them. If Tribal land 

straddles a State line and the Tribe does 

not have a separate traceability system 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

from the States in which it is contained, 

animal movements within the Tribal 

land that cross the State border would 

be considered interstate movements 

under this proposed rule. In such cases, 

the cattle and bison could still be moved 

across the State border using a form of 

identification agreed upon by animal 

health officials in the States of origin 

and destination. 

As described in greater detail below, 

we plan to phase in our official 

identification requirements for cattle 

and bison, applying them immediately 

upon the effective date of the final rule 

for this proposed rule to certain classes 

of cattle and bison and over time to 

other classes of cattle and bison. Until 

the date on which the official 

identification requirements apply to all 

cattle and bison, cattle and bison would 

also be eligible for interstate movement 

without official identification if they are 

moved directly to a recognized 

slaughtering establishment or directly to 

no more than one approved livestock 

facility approved to handle ‘‘for 

slaughter only’’ animals (cattle or bison 

that, when marketed, are presented/sold 

for slaughter only) and then directly to 

a recognized slaughtering establishment; 

and 

• They are moved interstate with a 

USDA-approved backtag; or 

• A USDA-approved backtag is 

applied to the cattle or bison at the 

recognized slaughtering establishment 

or federally approved livestock facility 

approved to handle ‘‘for slaughter only’’ 

animals. 

Because backtags are not considered 

to be a permanent form of identification, 

we are proposing to discontinue 

allowing the use of USDA backtags as 

official identification for cattle and 

bison. We would, however, allow their 

use in lieu of official identification for 

animals going to slaughter. We therefore 

propose to define United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

approved backtag as a backtag issued by 

APHIS that provides a temporary 

unique identification for each animal. 

The inclusion of the word temporary is 

what distinguishes this proposed 

definition from the otherwise identical 

definition of United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) backtag in § 71.1. 

The phase-in of the proposed official 

identification requirements for cattle 

and bison would proceed as described 

in the paragraphs that follow. Beginning 

on the effective date of the final rule for 

this proposed rule, the official 

identification requirements would apply 

to all sexually intact cattle and bison 18 

months of age or over, dairy cattle of 

any age, cattle and bison of any age used 

for rodeo or recreational events, and 

cattle and bison used for shows or 

exhibitions. Because cattle and bison 

belonging to these categories tend to 

have longer lifespans than feeder 

animals and move around more, they 

have more opportunities for 

commingling and thus present a greater 

risk of spreading disease via interstate 

movement. It is therefore necessary to 

prioritize traceability of these animals 

over feeder animals. APHIS requests 

comment on this determination and the 

decision to implement the requirements 

for this subgroup first. 

APHIS recognizes that the second 

stage of the phase-in process, the 

expansion of the official identification 

requirements to all remaining classes of 

cattle and bison, estimated to be 

approximately 20 million animals 

annually, could disrupt the management 

and marketing of cattle if not 

implemented properly. Critical to 

successful implementation is to ensure 

that our proposed official identification 

requirements are being implemented 

effectively throughout the production 

chain for all cattle required to be 

officially identified in the initial phase. 

Therefore, we are proposing to conduct 

an assessment of the workability of the 

requirements for cattle in the initial 

phase before expanding the official 

identification requirements to cover all 

remaining classes of cattle and bison. 

When we are ready to begin that 

assessment, we will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register. The notice will 

describe the procedures we will use in 

our assessment, as well as its objectives. 

The assessment will involve an 

advisory group with industry 

representation from sectors most 

affected by the official identification 

requirements. The advisory group will 

provide feedback on the effectiveness of 

various elements of the initial phase of 

identifying cattle and offer 

recommendations regarding the 

application of the official identification 

requirements to beef cattle under 18 

months of age. 

APHIS requests comment on our 

proposal to apply the official 

identification requirements discussed 

above to all remaining classes of cattle, 

in particular, on the costs and benefits 

of doing so and on any practical 

difficulties or unintended consequences 

that may result. Further, we request 

comment on how APHIS should 

conduct the assessment process 

described above. We are particularly 

interested in comments on what 

information APHIS should collect and 

the methods by which it should be 

collected. 

We are proposing to delay 

implementing official identification 

requirements for beef cattle under 18 

months of age until 70 percent of all 

cattle initially required to be officially 

identified are found to be in compliance 

with official identification 

requirements. We would evaluate a 

representative cross-section of the cattle 

population to determine whether the 70- 

percent compliance rate has been 

attained. While higher rates of 

compliance are ultimately expected and 

necessary, the 70-percent figure would 

represent a significant increase in the 

use of official eartags on adult cattle, 

indicating that effective tagging 

practices are in place. We will ask the 

advisory group, as part of their review 

of the initial phase, to consider and 

comment on our data and the evaluation 

methodology we used for determining 

that the 70-percent rate of compliance 

has been attained. As indicated above, 

the advisory group would also provide 

feedback that would aid us in making 

our determination that the official 

identification requirements were being 

effectively implemented during the 

initial phase. 

Additionally, we welcome comments 

and suggestions from the public on 

factors other than compliance rate that 

APHIS should consider when assessing 

the effectiveness of the initial official 

identification requirements for cattle in 

enhancing traceability. 

APHIS will consider the advisory 

report and all feedback from the public 

regarding the official identification of 

beef cattle under 18 months of age. 

When we have completed our 

assessment and determined that 

expansion of the official identification 

requirements for cattle is viable, APHIS 

will publish a notice of the availability 

of the assessment in the Federal 

Register and take comments from the 

public. If after reviewing the comments, 

APHIS decides to move forward with 

the implementation of the second stage 

of the phase-in process, APHIS will 

publish an additional notice in the 

Federal Register discussing the 

comments and announcing the date 

(1 year after the date of publication of 

the notice) upon which the official 

identification requirements will become 

effective for all cattle and bison. 

When Sheep and Goats Must Be 

Officially Identified 

Under this proposed rule, sheep and 

goats moving interstate would have to 

be officially identified prior to the 

interstate movement unless they are 

exempted under the scrapie regulations 

in part 79 from official identification 

requirements or are officially identified 

after the interstate movement, as 

provided in part 79. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50091 

When Swine Must Be Officially 

Identified 

Swine moving interstate would have 

to be officially identified in accordance 

with § 71.19 of the existing regulations. 

Included in that section are 

requirements for the handling and 

administration of official identification 

devices or methods. 

When Equines Must Be Officially 

Identified 

Horses and other equines moving 

interstate would have to be officially 

identified prior to interstate movement 

in accordance with these proposed 

regulations or identified as agreed upon 

by State or Tribal officials in the 

jurisdictions involved in the movement, 

or, if the horses are being commercially 

transported to slaughter, in accordance 

with part 88. 

When Poultry Must Be Officially 

Identified 

The proposed requirements for 

poultry are similar to those for equines. 

Poultry moving interstate would have to 

be officially identified prior to interstate 

movement or identified as agreed upon 

by State or Tribal officials in the 

shipping and receiving jurisdictions. 

When Captive Cervids Must Be 

Officially Identified 

Captive cervids moving interstate 

would have to be officially identified 

prior to interstate movement in 

accordance with the tuberculosis 

regulations in part 77. 

Use of Multiple Official Identification 

Devices 

The use of multiple official 

identification devices or methods with 

multiple official identification numbers 

for a single animal has the potential to 

cause confusion and impede efforts to 

track the movements of that animal. We 

propose, therefore, to prohibit the use of 

more than one official identification 

device or method on an animal, 

beginning on the effective date of the 

final rule for this proposed rule, with 

some exceptions. Exceptions to the 

prohibition would be granted under the 

following circumstances when the use 

of more than one official identification 

device or method may be appropriate or 

necessary: 

• 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. The person 

applying the second official 

identification device would have to 

record the date on which the second 

official identification device was added, 

the official number of the device already 

applied to the animal, and the reason for 

the additional official identification 

device or method. Those records would 

have to be maintained for a minimum of 

5 years. 

• 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 an 

eartag with a NUES number, as AIN 

devices are commonly used for herd 

management purposes. The animal’s 

official identification number on the 

existing official identification eartag 

must be recorded and reported in 

accordance with the AIN device 

distribution policies, which can be 

found in our Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

Document. 

• 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. 

Removal or Loss of Official 

Identification Devices 

We propose to modify certain existing 

requirements pertaining to the removal 

or loss of official identification devices. 

The existing regulations in § 71.22 state 

that official identification devices are 

intended to provide permanent 

identification of livestock and to ensure 

the ability to find the source of animal 

disease outbreaks. Section 71.22 also 

prohibits the intentional removal of 

such devices except at the time of 

slaughter. We would incorporate that 

prohibition into our proposed 

regulations in part 90 in modified form, 

allowing for removal of official 

identification devices not only at 

slaughter, but also at any other location 

where the animal may be upon its death 

or as otherwise approved by the State 

animal health official or an area 

veterinarian in charge when a device 

needs to be replaced. This proposed 

change would codify existing practices. 

We would provide that all man-made 

identification devices affixed to covered 

livestock moved interstate must be 

removed at slaughter and correlated 

with the carcasses through final 

inspection by means approved by the 

Food Safety and 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 by means approved by 

FSIS. Devices collected at slaughter 

must be made available to APHIS and 

FSIS. This proposed requirement is 

consistent with FSIS’s requirements and 

would enhance our ability to conduct 

traceback investigations in the event of 

a positive post-mortem diagnosis. 

We would further propose that 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. This is a new 

requirement that would also enhance 

our traceback capabilities. APHIS 

requests comment on the costs and 

benefits of this proposed requirement. 

The proposed rule would not require 

that producers keep records of animals 

that are tagged on their farms, moved 

onto or from their farms, or die on their 

farms. The percentage of animals that 

die on farms is so small in comparison 

with those that are slaughtered or 

rendered, that the overall access to 

terminated animal records would not be 

significantly impacted negatively if 

those records were not made available 

to APHIS. Producers are encouraged to 

record such information, however, for 

general herd-management 

recordkeeping and, if needed, to support 

disease investigation activities that may 

include their operations, 

Under this proposed rule, if an animal 

were to lose an official identification 

device and need a new one, the person 

applying the new one would have to 

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. 

This proposed recordkeeping 

requirement, which is a new one, would 

aid State, Tribal, and Federal officials 

when it is necessary to trace such 

animals. 

Replacement of Official Identification 

Devices 

We are also proposing some new 

requirements pertaining to the 

replacement of official identification 

devices for reasons other than loss. 

Though in practice there are 

circumstances that might necessitate the 

replacement of such devices, the 

existing regulations are silent on the 

matter. To prevent any confusion 

regarding when official identification 

devices may be replaced in accordance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

with the regulations, it is necessary to 

specify those circumstances to the 

extent possible. We are therefore 

proposing to provide that a State or 

Tribal animal health official or an area 

veterinarian in charge could authorize 

the replacement of an official 

identification device under 

circumstances that include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

• Deterioration of the device such 

that loss of the device appears likely or 

the number can no longer be read; 

• 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); 

• Malfunction of the electronic 

component of a radio frequency 

identification (RFID) device; or 

• 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. 

In order to facilitate traceback, we 

also propose to require that records be 

kept when official identification devices 

are replaced under such circumstances. 

The person replacing the device would 

have to record the following information 

about the event and maintain the record 

for 5 years: 

• The date on which the device was 

removed; 

• Contact information for the location 

where the device was removed; 

• The official identification number 

(to the extent possible) on the device 

removed; 

• The type of device removed (e.g., 

metal eartag, RFID eartag); 

• The reason for the removal of the 

device; 

• The new official identification 

number on the replacement device; and 

• The type of replacement device 

applied. 

Sale of Transfer of Official 

Identification Devices 

The sale or transfer of official 

identification devices between 

producers may complicate efforts to 

trace animals. We therefore provide that 

official identification devices may not 

be sold or otherwise transferred from 

the premises to which they were 

originally issued to another premises 

without the authorization of the 

Administrator or a State or Tribal 

animal health official. 

Documentation Requirements for 

Interstate Movement (§ 90.5) 

Generally, under these proposed 

regulations, covered livestock moving 

interstate would have to be 

accompanied by an ICVI, unless the 

regulations allow a specific movement 

without an ICVI, or alternative 

documentation is agreed upon by the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes, 

or another form of documentation is 

required for a particular species under 

the existing disease program regulations 

in 9 CFR subchapter C. 

Information requirements for ICVIs 

have already been discussed above. We 

are also proposing to add new 

requirements for the issuance and use of 

ICVIs and other documents used for 

interstate movement of animals. 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 

APHIS representative, State, or Tribal 

representative, or accredited 

veterinarian who issues an ICVI or other 

document required for the interstate 

movement of animals would have to 

forward a copy of the ICVI or other 

document to the State animal health 

official of the State of origin within 5 

working days. The State or Tribal 

animal health official in the State or 

Tribe of origin, in turn, would have to 

forward a copy of the document to the 

State of destination within 5 working 

days. These proposed requirements 

would ensure that such documents 

would be issued only by qualified 

personnel, would accompany the 

animals being moved, and would be 

made available in a timely manner for 

use by APHIS and State animal health 

officials in traceback investigations. The 

proposed 5-day limit for forwarding is 

intended to facilitate a traceback and/or 

trace forward investigation if an animal 

moved interstate in accordance with the 

regulations were found to be infected. 

Requiring the person issuing the ICVI or 

other document only to forward it to the 

State of origin rather than the State of 

destination as well would lessen his or 

her paperwork burden. 

These proposed requirements are 

similar to those in § 78.2 for the 

handling of certificates, but have been 

streamlined for clarity and adapted in 

such a way as to ensure to the greatest 

extent possible that the documents are 

received by all personnel that may need 

them for conducting traceback 

investigations. As discussed later in this 

document, we would amend § 78.2 so 

that the document handling 

requirements there and in these 

proposed traceability regulations would 

be consistent. 

It should be noted that the proposed 

timeframes and forwarding 

requirements are based on the handling 

of paper documents. As is now the 

practice generally when APHIS or State 

veterinarians issue veterinary 

certificates, if ICVIs or other documents 

were to be issued electronically, they 

would be transmitted simultaneously to 

both the State of origin and the State of 

destination. 

We are proposing certain exemptions 

to the requirement that cattle and bison 

moving interstate must be accompanied 

by an ICVI. Such cattle and bison would 

be exempt from the requirement under 

the following circumstances: 

• They are moved directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment, 

or directly to an approved livestock 

facility approved to handle ‘‘for 

slaughter only’’ animals and then 

directly to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment, and they are 

accompanied by an owner-shipper 

statement. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• They are moved directly from one 

State through another State and back to 

the original State. 

• They are moved as a commuter 

herd with a copy of the commuter herd 

agreement. 

• Additionally, cattle and bison 

under 18 months of age may be moved 

between shipping and receiving States 

or Tribes with documentation other 

than an ICVI, e.g., a brand inspection 

certificate when a brand is used for 

identification, as agreed upon by animal 

health officials in the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes. 

A number of these exceptions, such as 

those for movement of commuter herds, 

transit through a second State and 

return to the original State, and 

movement to slaughter, dovetail with 

the exemptions allowed from official 

identification requirements. Because of 

the other safeguards associated with 

such interstate movements, an ICVI is 

not considered to be necessary. The 

exemption for movement between States 

or Tribes that have agreed upon an 

alternative form of documentation 

would not be allowed for sexually intact 

cattle or bison 18 months of age or 

older. Adult breeding cattle moving 

interstate warrant inspection, which 

must be documented on the ICVI, 

because their longevity and contacts 

with other livestock make them a higher 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50093 

risk for exposure to and transmission of 

disease. 

Official identification numbers of 

cattle or bison moving interstate would 

have to be recorded on the ICVI or other 

documentation accompanying them, 

except under the following 

circumstances: 

• If the cattle or bison are moved from 

an approved livestock facility directly to 

a recognized slaughtering establishment; 

or 

• If the cattle and bison are sexually 

intact cattle or bison under 18 months 

of age, or are steers or spayed heifers of 

any age. This exception would not 

apply, however, to sexually intact dairy 

cattle of any age or to cattle or bison 

used for rodeo, exhibition, or 

recreational purposes. 

We recognize that recording 

identification of feeder cattle and bison 

in ICVIs and other documentation 

would significantly slow commerce in 

those animals, which are often moved in 

large numbers. The other requirements 

proposed for these animals will 

nevertheless improve their traceability. 

Requiring official identification 

numbers for other cattle and bison to be 

recorded on ICVIs is a priority given 

their longer lifespans and increased 

opportunity for commingling with 

animals at different locations. 

Horses and other equine species 

moving interstate would have to be 

accompanied by an ICVI or other 

interstate movement document as 

agreed to by the States or Tribes 

involved in the movement. Equines 

being commercially shipped to 

slaughter would have to be 

accompanied by documentation in 

accordance with part 88. Equine 

infectious anemia (EIA) reactors would 

have to be accompanied by 

documentation as required by 9 CFR 

part 75. Under the existing regulations, 

equines other than slaughter equines or 

EIA reactors generally are not required 

to be accompanied by documentation 

for interstate movement. The more 

comprehensive documentation 

requirements we are proposing here 

would improve traceability by closing a 

major gap in the regulations. 

Poultry moving interstate would have 

to be accompanied by an ICVI, with 

some exceptions similar to those 

allowed for cattle and bison when other 

safeguards are in place. Specifically, the 

proposed exceptions to the ICVI 

requirements for poultry are as follows: 

• The poultry are from a flock 

participating in the NPIP and are 

accompanied by the documentation 

required under the NPIP regulations for 

participation in that program; 

• The poultry are moved directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment; 

• The poultry 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; 

• The poultry are moved directly 

from one State through another State 

and back to the original State; 

• The poultry are moved between the 

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; or 

• The poultry are moved under 

permit in accordance with 9 CFR part 

82. 

As we have noted previously, in the 

overview section of this preamble, 

traceability-related requirements in our 

existing regulations for some species of 

covered livestock, e.g., sheep and goats, 

swine, and captive cervids, are already 

sufficiently comprehensive and rigorous 

at this time. For that reason, this 

proposed rule would not alter existing 

documentation requirements for sheep 

and goats, swine, and captive cervids 

moving interstate. Sheep and goats 

moved interstate would have to be 

accompanied by documentation as 

required by the scrapie regulations in 

part 79. Swine moved interstate would 

have to be accompanied by 

documentation in accordance with 

§ 71.19. Captive cervids moving 

interstate would have to be 

accompanied by documentation as 

required under part 77. Captive cervids 

moving interstate from an accreditedfree State would be subject to the 

proposed traceability requirements and, 

therefore, would have to have an ICVI 

or other movement document. 

APHIS requests comment on the 

proposed requirement that covered 

livestock being moved interstate be 

accompanied by an ICVI or other 

movement documentation. In particular, 

we request comment on the benefits of 

veterinary inspection in the cases 

described above when ICVIs would be 

used. Will veterinary inspection, 

especially inspection of large herds, 

yield substantial benefits? We request 

comment on whether the proposal for 

veterinary inspection will impose costs 

on businesses, particularly on small or 

very small businesses. 

Performance Standards for Traceability 

When livestock are found to be 

infected with or exposed to a disease, 

we take action to prevent that animal 

from spreading it via interstate 

movement. Because the infected or 

exposed animal may already have had 

contact with other animals, however, we 

need to determine which other animals 

have had contact with the sick or 

exposed livestock, find them, and take 

appropriate actions to be sure they do 

not spread the disease. To do this, we 

need to trace the prior movements of the 

livestock found to be infected or 

exposed and then trace the forward 

movements of animals with which they 

may have come into contact. Our ability 

to monitor, control, and eradicate 

livestock diseases is contingent upon 

our being able to trace livestock 

movements forward and backward. Our 

focus in this rulemaking is on tracing 

interstate animal movements. 

Though we do not now have the data 

necessary to establish performance 

standards for States and Tribes and are 

not proposing to add any to the 

regulations at this time, in the 

paragraphs that follow, we discuss our 

current thinking on the issue. 

Additional information regarding 

performance standards is available on 

our traceability Web site at http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/. We 

welcome comments from the public on 

all aspects of this issue. We propose to 

reserve a section in the regulations for 

the performance standards that we plan 

to establish through a future 

rulemaking. 

To evaluate a State’s or Tribe’s ability 

to meet the traceability performance 

standards, APHIS would make use of 

animals it selects as ‘‘reference 

animals.’’ APHIS could randomly select 

reference animals for a test exercise or 

could select animals that were included 

in an actual disease traceback 

investigation as reference animals. 

However, animals would be eligible to 

be used as reference animals only if they 

were moved interstate on or after the 

date they are required to be officially 

identified and only if they are identified 

with an official identification number 

issued on or after the effective date of 

the final rule for this proposed rule. 

These eligibility criteria would ensure 

that animals moved interstate prior to 

this rulemaking would not be included 

in the pool of reference animals. States 

and Tribes would be evaluated on their 

ability to trace animals moved in 

accordance with the new regulations 

only. 

As we currently envision the 

performance standards, States and 

Tribes would have to be able to 

accomplish the four activities listed 

below, which are necessary components 

of a trace investigation, within a 

specified timeframe for any species 

covered under the traceability 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

regulations. These activities would 

measure a State’s or Tribe’s ability to 

trace the movement of reference animals 

backwards or forwards as necessary, 

depending on whether it is a shipping 

or receiving State or Tribe. 

• The receiving State or Tribe of a 

reference animal determines the State or 

Tribe in which the animal was officially 

identified and notifies that State or 

Tribe of the reference animal’s official 

identification number. 

• The State or Tribe where a reference 

animal was officially identified 

confirms that it has documentation that 

the official identification number was 

issued within its jurisdiction and that it 

has contact information for the person 

who received that identification 

number. 

• The receiving State or Tribe of a 

reference animal determines the State or 

Tribe from which the animal was moved 

interstate into its jurisdiction and 

notifies that State or Tribe of the 

reference animal’s official identification 

number. 

• The State or Tribe that receives 

notification that a reference animal 

moved interstate from its jurisdiction 

determines the address or location from 

which the reference animal was 

shipped. 

We intend to conduct baseline studies 

by collecting information on States’ and 

Tribes’ abilities to carry out those four 

activities for each species covered by 

these regulations. The data we collect 

will enable us to establish firm 

measurements by which we could 

evaluate the performance of States and 

Tribes. 

Traceability Evaluations of States and 

Tribes 

Because we have not yet finalized the 

performance standards, we are not 

proposing at this time to add to the 

regulations a description of the process 

we will use to evaluate States’ and 

Tribes’ performance or requirements for 

conducting such evaluations. In the 

paragraphs that follow, however, we 

discuss our current thinking on those 

issues. We welcome comments from the 

public regarding the evaluation process. 

We are reserving an additional section 

in the regulations for evaluation 

requirements that we plan to establish 

through future rulemaking. 

Regardless of the final form the 

evaluation requirements take, we 

anticipate that Tribal lands within a 

State’s boundaries would be included in 

the evaluation of that State unless the 

Tribe has a separate traceability system. 

To ensure equal treatment for Tribes, 

any Tribe wishing to have a separate 

traceability system and be evaluated 

separately from the State(s) in which its 

lands are located could request separate 

consideration at any time. 

As we currently envision the 

evaluation process, if a State or Tribe 

did not meet all traceability 

performance standards for a particular 

species but performed within what we 

determined to be an acceptable range, 

the State or Tribe would have 

opportunity to take corrective action 

without penalty. APHIS would 

reevaluate the State or Tribe upon 

request of State or Tribal animal health 

officials. If the State or Tribe did not 

request reevaluation or failed to meet all 

traceability performance standards for 

the species after 3 years, additional 

traceability requirements, which are 

described below, could be applied to the 

interstate movement of the applicable 

species from the State or Tribe. Animal 

movements from States or Tribes that 

fail to meet performance standards may 

be associated with a greater risk of 

spreading disease than animal 

movements from compliant States or 

Tribes. For that reason, the need to trace 

animal movements from the former 

category of States and Tribes may be 

more acute, necessitating more stringent 

traceability requirements. 

If an evaluation were to show that a 

State or Tribe’s performance was not 

within a defined acceptable range for a 

species, the Administrator would notify 

the State or Tribe in writing that 

additional traceability requirements 

would apply to the interstate movement 

of the applicable species from the State 

or Tribe beginning 60 days from the date 

of notification. The State or Tribe could 

appeal the decision in writing within 15 

days of receiving notification. The 

appeal would have to provide all of the 

facts and reasons the State or Tribe 

believes that the Administrator should 

consider in rejecting the results of the 

evaluation and ordering a new one. The 

Administrator would grant or deny the 

appeal in writing, as promptly as 

circumstances allow, stating the reasons 

for the decision. 

Any additional traceability 

requirements for States or Tribes not 

performing within an acceptable range 

would be established by the 

Administrator in each case, taking into 

consideration the results of the 

traceability evaluation, in order to 

enhance traceability of the species for 

which the performance standards are 

not being met. The additional 

requirements could include, but would 

not be limited to, requirements to apply 

or record official identification that 

would otherwise not be required under 

the regulations, or requirements for 

supplemental documentation, such as 

movement permits. APHIS would 

reevaluate the State or Tribe at the 

request of State or Tribal animal health 

officials. So that the public would be 

informed, APHIS would announce the 

imposition or removal of any additional 

traceability requirements through 

documents published in the Federal 

Register. 

Preemption (§ 90.8) 

Our proposed traceability regulations 

would preempt State, Tribal, and local 

laws and regulations that are in conflict 

with them, with certain exceptions. In 

keeping with our objective of allowing 

States and Tribes to develop the 

traceability systems that work best for 

them, we would allow them the latitude 

to impose some additional requirements 

for the movement of animals into their 

jurisdictions, so long as those additional 

requirements are consistent with our 

traceability goals and do not interfere 

with the right of another State or Tribe 

to determine what kind of traceability 

system to employ. Specifically, we 

would allow States and Tribes to require 

that covered livestock moving into their 

jurisdictions be officially identified 

even if those covered livestock are 

exempt from official identification 

requirements under these proposed 

regulations. The State or Tribe of 

destination could not, however, specify 

an official identification device or 

method, such as an RFID tag, that would 

have to be used by the shipping State or 

Tribe. Nor could the State or Tribe of 

destination compel the shipping State or 

Tribe 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. 

Changes to 9 CFR Part 71 

The addition of the new traceability 

part would necessitate some changes to 

part 71, which contains general 

provisions pertaining to the interstate 

movement of livestock. In § 71.1, we 

would revise 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) so that they 

would match the definitions we are 

proposing in our traceability 

regulations. We would also replace the 

existing definitions of moved 

(movement) in interstate commerce and 

United States Department of Agriculture 

backtag, respectively, with our 

proposed definitions of move and 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) approved backtag and add to 

§ 71.1 the definitions of flock-based 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50095 

number system, flock identification 

number (FIN), National Uniform 

Eartagging System (NUES), and official 

identification number that we are 

proposing to include in part 90. We 

would remove and reserve § 71.18, 

which pertains to the identification of 

cattle aged 2 years and over for 

interstate movement, and § 71.22, which 

addresses the removal and loss of 

official identification devices. Both sets 

of requirements are addressed in the 

proposed new traceability part. Finally, 

we would make some minor editorial 

changes to § 71.19, so that the 

terminology used therein would be 

consistent with that of proposed part 90. 

Changes to 9 CFR Parts 77 and 78 

Adding the proposed traceability 

requirements to the regulations also 

necessitates some changes to the 

existing regulations pertaining to 

tuberculosis, in part 77, and brucellosis, 

in part 78. For species other than cattle 

and bison, the proposed traceability 

regulations, in most cases, refer the 

reader to the appropriate existing 

regulations for those species; for cattle 

and bison, however, the proposed 

traceability regulations will impose 

additional and, in some cases, slightly 

different requirements. To avoid 

potential conflicts with the traceability 

requirements, we are therefore 

proposing some amendments to the 

tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations. 

In both parts 77 and 78, we are 

proposing to amend certain definitions. 

We are also proposing to amend the 

regulatory text in parts 77 and 78 to 

incorporate the new and amended 

definitions and to ensure that the 

requirements in those parts pertaining 

to official identification of animals 

moving interstate and documentation of 

such movements are consistent with, 

when not more stringent than, the 

requirements in the proposed 

traceability part. 

We are proposing to amend § 77.2, 

which contains definitions applicable to 

all of part 77, to revise the definitions 

of animal identification number (AIN), 

livestock, official eartag, officially 

identified, and premises identification 

number (PIN), remove the definitions of 

certificate, moved, moved directly, and 

premises of origin identification, and 

add definitions of directly, interstate 

certificate of veterinary inspection 

(ICVI), location-based numbering 

system, location identification (LID) 

number, move, National Uniform 

Eartagging System (NUES), official 

identification number, recognized 

slaughtering establishment, and United 

States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) approved backtag as discussed 

above. In § 77.5, which contains 

definitions applicable to cattle and 

bison, we are proposing to remove the 

definition of approved slaughtering 

establishment and add a definition of 

recognized slaughtering establishment 

in its place. 

The existing definition of officially 

identified in § 77.2, referred to earlier 

under our discussion of official 

identification devices and methods for 

captive cervids, allows for the use of 

official eartags, tattoos and hot brands as 

means of official identification. We 

propose to define officially identified in 

§ 77.2 as identified by means of an 

official eartag. As noted previously, 

eliminating tattoos and hot brands as 

means of official identification in part 

77 would avoid a potential conflict 

between our tuberculosis regulations 

and our proposed traceability 

requirements. 

Many of the amendments we are 

proposing to the remainder of part 77 

are intended to incorporate the revised 

or new definitions into the regulatory 

text. Throughout part 77, sections listing 

interstate movement requirements (for 

cattle and bison, §§ 77.10, 77.12, 77.14, 

and 77.16; for captive cervids, §§ 77.25, 

77.27, 77.29, 77.31, 77.32, 77.35, 77.36, 

77.37, and 77.40) contain references to 

certificates and/or approved 

slaughtering establishments. Wherever 

those terms occur, the text would be 

amended to refer to ICVIs and 

recognized slaughtering establishments 

instead. 

We are proposing some additional 

changes to make the regulations clearer. 

Current § 77.8 states that cattle and 

bison originating in an accredited-free 

State or zone may be moved interstate 

without restriction. Even under the 

existing regulations, that provision is 

not entirely accurate, since cattle over 2 

years of age must meet the requirements 

of § 71.18 to move interstate. We 

therefore are proposing to amend § 77.8 

to state that cattle and bison from an 

accredited free State or zone may be 

moved interstate in accordance with 

proposed part 90 (as noted earlier, 

proposed traceability requirements for 

cattle and bison would replace the 

existing ones in § 71.18) and without 

further restriction under the 

tuberculosis regulations. 

Other proposed changes to part 77 are 

intended to eliminate possible conflicts 

with the proposed traceability 

regulations while also streamlining the 

existing ones. Under current § 77.23, 

captive cervids from an accredited-free 

State or zone may be moved interstate 

without restriction. We are proposing to 

amend that section to state that captive 

cervids may move interstate from an 

accredited-free State or zone in 

accordance with the traceability 

regulations, (i.e., as noted previously, 

they would no longer be exempted from 

official identification and 

documentation requirements) and 

without further restriction under the 

tuberculosis regulations. In a number of 

places the tuberculosis regulations 

allow for interstate movement of cattle 

and bison to slaughter (§§ 77.10, 77.12, 

77.14) without the USDA approved 

backtags required under the proposed 

traceability regulations or for interstate 

movement of captive cervids (§§ 77.25, 

77.27, 77.29, 77.32, 77.35, 77.36, and 

77.37) either to slaughter without 

backtags or to other destinations 

without the official identification 

required under the proposed traceability 

regulations. We are proposing to amend 

these various sections to indicate that 

animals moving interstate under the 

tuberculosis regulations must, at a 

minimum, meet the traceability 

requirements of proposed part 90, e.g., 

have backtags if being moved to 

slaughter, and meet any additional 

conditions that apply under the 

tuberculosis regulations. Where the 

existing regulations allow premises of 

origin identification in lieu of official 

identification, e.g., in §§ 77.10, 77.12, 

and 77.14, we would eliminate the 

premises-of-origin alternative to bring 

our tuberculosis requirements into line 

with our proposed traceability 

requirements. In some cases, the 

sections being amended in part 77 

would undergo some limited 

reorganization, in order to avoid 

unnecessary repetition. For example, we 

would remove some paragraphs that 

focus specifically on identification of 

animals moving to slaughter and instead 

refer to those requirements in amended 

introductory text. The changes we are 

proposing to part 77 would ensure that 

in all cases, the identification 

requirements in the tuberculosis 

regulations would, at a minimum, be 

equivalent to our proposed traceability 

requirements. 

We propose to amend § 78.1, which 

defines terms pertaining to the 

regulation of brucellosis, in a manner 

similar to our proposed changes to 

§ 77.2. Specifically, we would revise the 

definitions of animal identification 

number (AIN), dairy cattle, directly, 

market cattle identification test cattle, 

official eartag, and recognized 

slaughtering establishment, remove the 

definitions of certificate, official 

identification device or method, and 

rodeo bulls, and add definitions of 

commuter herd, commuter herd 

agreement, interstate certificate of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

veterinary inspection (ICVI), locationbased numbering system, location 

identification (LID) number, National 

Uniform Eartagging System (NUES), 

official identification number, officially 

identified, and rodeo cattle. 

The existing definition of market 

cattle identification test cattle in § 78.1 

defines such cattle as cows and bulls 2 

years of age or over which have been 

moved to recognized slaughtering 

establishments, and test-eligible 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. The definition further states that 

such cattle shall be identified by an 

official eartag and/or United States 

Department of Agriculture backtag prior 

to or at the first market, stockyard, 

quarantined feedlot, or slaughtering 

establishment they reach. 

We are proposing here to define 

market cattle identification test cattle as 

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. 

Under the proposed definition, such 

cattle must be identified with an official 

identification device or method as 

specified in the proposed traceability 

requirements prior to or at the first 

market, stockyard, quarantined feedlot, 

or slaughtering establishment they 

reach. These proposed changes to the 

definition bring it into line with our 

proposed traceability requirements by 

lowering from 2 years to 18 months the 

age of the cattle to which the 

requirements apply. By referring the 

reader to the traceability requirements 

for official identification devices and 

methods, rather than specifying the tags 

to be used, as in the existing definition, 

we would eliminate the option of using 

a backtag as official identification for 

such cattle, further aligning our 

brucellosis regulations with our 

proposed traceability requirements. 

Our proposed definition of rodeo 

cattle—cattle used at rodeos or 

competitive events—takes the place of 

the existing definition of rodeo bulls 

and reflects current usage. Current 

§ 78.14 contains requirements for the 

interstate movement of rodeo bulls. We 

propose to amend § 78.14 by replacing 

the term rodeo bulls wherever it is used, 

including in the section heading, with 

rodeo cattle. 

Other proposed changes in part 78 

align the terminology used in that part 

with that of the proposed traceability 

regulations. References to certificates in 

§§ 78.2, 78.9, 78.12, 78.14, and 78.20 

would be replaced wherever they occur 

with references to ICVIs. Current 

§ 78.9(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iv), and (c)(3)(iv) 

describe interstate movements that 

would be covered under our proposed 

definitions of commuter herd and 

commuter herd agreement but do not 

use those terms. To achieve greater 

consistency in our regulations, we 

propose to amend those paragraphs by 

incorporating into them the commuter 

herd language used in the proposed 

traceability regulations. As noted above, 

definitions of commuter herd and 

commuter herd agreement would be 

added to § 78.1. 

As in part 77 of the existing 

regulations, there are a number of 

provisions in part 78, e.g., in §§ 78.5, 

78.6, 78.9, 78.12, 78.20, 78.21, 78.23, 

and 78.24, that, as currently worded, 

could give the reader the mistaken 

impression that the interstate 

movements referred to in those 

provisions are either not restricted or 

subject to restriction only under the 

brucellosis regulations. In all such 

instances, we are proposing to amend 

the text to indicate that the interstate 

movements referred to must also meet 

our proposed traceability requirements. 

Current § 78.2(b)(1) charges the 

APHIS representative, State 

representative, or accredited 

veterinarian responsible for issuing a 

certificate with the task of forwarding a 

copy of the certificate to the State 

animal health official in either the State 

of origin or the State of destination. If 

the APHIS representative, State 

representative, or accredited 

veterinarian issues a permit, he or she 

must forward a copy to the State of 

destination. We propose to amend that 

paragraph to require the APHIS, State, 

or Tribal representative or accredited 

veterinarian issuing an ICVI or other 

interstate movement document used in 

lieu of an ICVI or a permit to forward 

a copy of the ICVI, other 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 must then 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. As discussed earlier, this 

proposed change is intended to aid State 

officials in conducting both traceback 

and trace-forward investigations, should 

they become necessary. 

Finally, we are proposing to add to 

§ 78.5 a statement that cattle moved 

interstate under permit in accordance 

with the brucellosis regulations are not 

required to be accompanied by an ICVI 

or owner-shipper statement. This 

proposed addition will help prevent 

unnecessary duplication of 

documentation or confusion about what 

documents are required. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Orders 12866 

and 13653, and an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis that examines the 

potential economic effects of this 

proposed rule on small entities, as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. The economic analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

We are proposing to establish 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 would apply to cattle 

and bison, horses and other equine 

species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, 

and captive cervids (referred to below as 

covered livestock), the focus of this 

analysis is on expected economic effects 

for the beef and dairy cattle industries. 

These enterprises would be most 

affected operationally by the rule. For 

the other species, APHIS would largely 

maintain and build on the identification 

requirements of existing disease 

program regulations. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50097 

APHIS requests comment on this 

determination. We invite comment on 

whether the proposed rule would have 

significant effect on the poultry industry 

or other affected industries. We 

particularly welcome any quantified 

estimates of impacts that the proposed 

rule might have. 

Costs for cattle producers are 

estimated in terms of activities that 

would need to be conducted for official 

animal identification and issuance of an 

ICVI, or other movement 

documentation, for covered 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 would 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 would simply 

replace current requirements, the 

incremental costs of the rule for private 

enterprises would be minimal. 

Certain animal disease traceability 

requirements would be implemented in 

stages, thereby lowering near-term costs 

of the program. For example, beginning 

on the effective date of the final rule, 

official identification requirements 

would apply only to sexually intact 

cattle and bison 18 months of age or 

over, dairy cattle of any age, and cattle 

and bison of any age used for rodeo, 

exhibition, or recreational purposes. 

Beginning 1 year after APHIS has 

established that the official 

identification requirements for those 

classes of cattle and bison to which the 

requirements would apply in the initial 

stage are being implemented effectively 

throughout the production chain and 

that there is a 70 percent rate of 

compliance with those requirements, 

initially exempted cattle and bison 

under 18 months of age would need to 

be officially identified as well, but the 

identification numbers of these younger 

animals would not need to be recorded 

on the ICVI. 

There are two main cost components 

for the proposed rule, using eartags to 

identify cattle and having certificates for 

cattle moved interstate. Approximately 

20 percent of cattle are not currently 

eartagged as part of routine management 

practices. 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 would tag their 

cattle as an activity separate from other 

routine management practices. More 

likely, producers who are not already 

using official eartags can be expected to 

combine tagging with other routine 

activities such as vaccination or deworming, 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 would be 

about $3.5 million. 

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 

proposed rule for ICVIs 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 proposed rule, the 

ICVI requirement in this proposed rule 

would not result in any additional costs. 

The combined annual costs of the rule 

for cattle operations of official 

identification and movement 

documentation would range between 

$14.5 million and $34.3 million, 

assuming official identification would 

be undertaken separately from other 

routine management practices; or 

between $5.5 million and $7.3 million, 

assuming that tagging would be 

combined 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 would be maintained 

under the proposed rule, but the way 

they are administered would likely 

change. Based on availability, Federal 

funding would 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 proposed rule. Case 

studies for bovine tuberculosis, bovine 

brucellosis, and bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy (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 

proposed rule. 

Benefits of the proposed 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 

proposed regulations would 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. 

Having a traceability system in place 

would 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 

proposed rule for cattle enterprises— 

between $14.5 million and $34.3 

million, assuming official identification 

is a separately performed activity, and 

between $5.5 million and $7.3 million, 

assuming official identification is 

combined 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 a very small proportion of these 

markets would need to be attributable to 

the proposed animal disease traceability 

program in order to justify estimated 

private sector costs. 

Most cattle operations in the United 

States are small entities. USDA would 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

impact statement has been prepared that 

includes a summary of Tribal officials’ 

concerns and of how APHIS has 

attempted to address them. 

The tribal summary impact statement 

may be viewed on the Regulations.gov 

Web site or in our reading room. (A link 

to Regulations.gov and information on 

the location and hours of the reading 

room are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are in conflict with this 

rule will be preempted, except as 

provided in proposed § 90.8; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2009–0091. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2009–0091, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would establish 

general traceability regulations for 

cattle, bison, swine, sheep, goats, 

equines, captive cervids, and poultry 

moving interstate. As a result of this 

rulemaking, such livestock that are 

moved interstate would have to be 

officially identified and accompanied by 

an ICVI or other documentation, unless 

specifically exempted from those 

requirements. The proposed regulations 

specify approved forms of official 

identification for each covered species 

but would allow covered livestock to be 

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 jurisdictions. 

The proposed rule would place the 

greatest information collection burden 

on the cattle industry, because that 

sector has the greatest gaps in 

traceability and the greatest need for 

new traceability standards. For the other 

species, APHIS would largely maintain 

and build on the identification 

requirements of existing disease 

program regulations, and the burden 

associated with those disease programs 

is contained in information collections 

related to those programs. 

APHIS is asking OMB to approve, for 

3 years, its use of this information 

collection activity to facilitate animal 

disease traceability and support these 

disease control, eradication, and 

surveillance activities. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.0855715 hours 

per response. 

Respondents: State, Tribal, and 

territorial animal health officials; 

accredited veterinarians; breed and 

registry associations; producers; 

livestock market operators; and harvest 

facility employees. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Respondents: 197,302. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Responses per Respondent: 42.85397. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Responses: 8,455,174. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 723,522 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

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 90 

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, 

Interstate movement, Livestock, Official 

identification, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Traceability. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 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 

identification number, and United 

States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) approved backtag in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 71.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50099 

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). 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 prefix; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 prefix will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

[Insert date 1 year after effective date of 

final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 

840 prefix may be used only on animals 

born in 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 

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 [Insert 

date 1 year after effective date of final 

rule] all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear the U.S. 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 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, in paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(d) introductory text, 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, 

officially identified, 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), locationbased numbering system, location 

identification (LID) number, move, 

National Uniform Eartagging System 

(NUES), 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). 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 prefix; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 prefix will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

[Insert date 1 year after effective date of 

final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 

840 prefix may be used only on animals 

born in the United States. 

* * * * * 

Directly. 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 in route 

if the animals are moved in any other 

manner. 

* * * * * 

Interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection (ICVI). An official document 

issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or 

accredited veterinarian at the location 

from which animals are shipped 

interstate. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(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. 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 belong to one of the 

classes of cattle and bison exempted 

under § 90.4 of this chapter from the 

official identification requirements of 9 

CFR part 90 during the initial stage of 

the phase-in of those requirements). 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. An ICVI may not be 

issued for any animal that is not 

officially identified if official 

identification is required. 

(2) As an alternative to typing or 

writing individual animal identification 

on an ICVI, 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; 

(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. 

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 [Insert 

date 1 year after effective date of final 

rule] all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear the U.S. 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 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. 

* * * * * 

Officially identified. Identified by 

means of an official eartag. 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

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 90 without further restriction 

under this part. 

10. Section 77.10 is revised to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50101 

§ 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 90 

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 

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 90 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 90 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 90’’ 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 90 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 90 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 

infected with or exposed to 

tuberculosis, may be moved interstate 

only in accordance with 9 CFR part 90 

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 90 

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 90’’ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50103 

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 

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, 

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), location-based numbering 

system, location identification (LID) 

number, National Uniform Eartagging 

System (NUES), official identification 

number, officially identified, 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). 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 prefix; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 prefix will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

[Insert date 1 year after effective date of 

final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 

840 prefix may be used only on animals 

born in 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) typically used to produce milk 

or other dairy products for human 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

Directly. 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 in route 

if the animals are moved in any other 

manner. 

* * * * * 

Interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection (ICVI). An official document 

issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or 

accredited veterinarian at the location 

from which animals are shipped 

interstate. 

(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. 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 belong to one of the 

classes of cattle and bison exempted 

under § 90.4 of this chapter from the 

official identification requirements of 9 

CFR part 90 during the initial stage of 

the phase-in of those requirements). 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. An ICVI may not be 

issued for any animal that is not 

officially identified if official 

identification is required. 

(b) As an alternative to typing or 

writing individual animal identification 

on an ICVI, 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; 

(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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

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 

§ 90.4(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 [Insert 

date 1 year after effective date of final 

rule] all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear the U.S. 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 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. 

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 90. 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 90 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. 

(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. 

(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 

to an approved intermediate handling 

facility without further restriction under 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50105 

(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, * * * 

* * * * * 

(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 90,’’ 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 90. 

(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 

90’’ 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: 

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 90 is added to 

subchapter C to read as follows: 

PART 90—ANIMAL DISEASE 

TRACEABILITY 

Sec. 

90.1 Definitions. 

90.2 General requirements for traceability. 

90.3 Recordkeeping requirements. 

90.4 Official identification. 

90.5 Documentation requirements for 

interstate movement of covered 

livestock. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50106 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

90.6 [Reserved] 

90.7 [Reserved] 

90.8 Preemption. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 90.1 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards Document. A document 

providing specific detail on, among 

other things, numbering systems, 

official identification devices, and ICVIs 

and other animal movement documents. 

The Animal Disease Traceability 

General Standards Document is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability. 

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). 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 prefix; however, only the AIN 

beginning with the 840 prefix will be 

recognized as official for use on AIN 

tags applied to animals on or after 

[Insert date 1 year after effective date of 

final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 

840 prefix may be used only on animals 

born in 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) typically used to produce milk 

or other dairy products for human 

consumption. 

Directly. 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 in route 

if the animals are moved in any other 

manner. 

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 at the location 

from which animals are shipped 

interstate. 

(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 (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. 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 belong to one of the 

classes of cattle and bison exempted 

under § 90.4 from the official 

identification requirements of this part 

during the initial stage of the phase-in 

of those requirements). 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. An ICVI may not be issued 

for any animal that is not officially 

identified if official identification is 

required. 

(2) As an alternative to typing or 

writing individual animal identification 

on an ICVI, 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; 

(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. 

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 herdmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50107 

unique 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 [Insert 

date 1 year after effective date of final 

rule] all official eartags applied to 

animals must bear the U.S. 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 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. 

United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. 

A backtag issued by APHIS that 

provides a temporary unique 

identification for each animal. 

§ 90.2 General requirements for 

traceability. 

(a) The regulations in this part apply 

only to covered livestock, as defined in 

§ 90.1. 

(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 for personal 

consumption. 

§ 90.3 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 

for at least 5 years any ICVIs or alternate 

documentation that is required by this 

part for the interstate movement of any 

covered livestock that enter the facility 

on or after [Insert effective date of final 

rule]. 

§ 90.4 Official identification. 

(a) Official identification devices and 

methods. The Administrator has 

approved the following official 

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) 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, as determined by 

a State or Tribal animal health official 

in the State or Tribe of destination or 

APHIS representative, including, but 

not limited to, name, age, breed, color, 

gender, distinctive markings, and 

unique and permanent forms of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

identification when present (e.g., 

brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, or 

blemishes); or 

(ii) Electronic identification that 

complies with ISO 11784/11785; or 

(iii) Digital photographs sufficient to 

identify the individual equine, as 

determined by a State or Tribal animal 

health official in the State or Tribe of 

destination or APHIS representative; or 

(iv) For equines being commercially 

transported to slaughter, a device or 

method authorized by part 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) In accordance 

with the schedule in paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii) of this section, cattle and bison 

moved interstate 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. 

(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. 

(D) The cattle and bison are moved 

between shipping and receiving States 

or Tribes with another form of 

identification, including but not limited 

to brands, tattoos, and breed registry 

certificates, as agreed upon by animal 

health officials in the shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes. 

(ii) Until the date on which the 

official identification requirements in 

this section apply to all categories of 

cattle and bison not specifically 

exempted, 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 

approved to handle ‘‘for slaughter only’’ 

animals (cattle or bison that, when 

marketed, are presented/sold for 

slaughter only) and then directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment; 

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 

approved to handle ‘‘for slaughter only’’ 

animals. 

(iii) Official identification 

requirements for cattle and bison will be 

phased in according to the schedule 

below. APHIS will publish a document 

in the Federal Register to announce the 

date upon which the requirements 

become effective for all cattle and bison 

not otherwise exempted from official 

identification requirements. 

Date when specified cattle and bison must be officially identified for 

interstate movement Classes of cattle and bison 

(A) Beginning on [Insert effective date of final rule] ................................ (1) All sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or over. 

(2) Dairy cattle of any age. 

(3) Cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo or recreational events. 

(4) Cattle and bison of any age used for shows or exhibitions. 

(B) Beginning 1 year after the date on which APHIS announces its determination that the official identification requirements are being effectively implemented throughout the production chain and that there 

is a 70 percent rate of compliance with those requirements for all 

classes of cattle that are subject to official identification requirements 

in the initial phase.

All cattle and bison. 

(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 

must be officially identified prior to 

interstate movement or identified as 

agreed upon by the States or Tribes 

involved in the movement or, if being 

commercially transported to slaughter, 

in accordance with part 88 of this 

chapter. 

(5) Poultry. Poultry moving interstate 

must be officially identified prior to 

interstate movement or 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 

identification device or method. 

Beginning on [Insert effective date of 

final rule], no more than one official 

identification device or method may be 

applied to an animal; except that: 

(1) A State or Tribal animal health 

official or an area veterinarian in charge 

may approve the application of a second 

official identification device 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). 

Approval may not be granted merely for 

convenience in identifying animals. The 

person applying the second official 

identification device must record the 

following information about the event 

and maintain the record for 5 years: The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50109 

date the second official identification 

device is added; the reason for the 

additional official identification device; 

and the official identification numbers 

of both official identification devices. 

(2) 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 an 

eartag with a National Uniform 

Eartagging System number. The 

animal’s official identification number 

on the existing official identification 

eartag must be recorded and reported in 

accordance with the AIN device 

distribution policies, which are 

described in the Animal Disease 

Traceability General Standards 

Document. 

(3) 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. 

(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 

moved interstate must be removed at 

slaughter and correlated with the 

carcasses through final inspection 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 by 

means approved by FSIS. Devices 

collected at slaughter must be made 

available to APHIS and FSIS. 

(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, the person applying new official 

identification device must record the 

following information about the event 

and maintain the record for 5 years: The 

date the new official identification 

device is added; the official 

identification number on the device; the 

official identification number on the old 

device if known. 

(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. 

§ 90.5 Documentation requirements for 

interstate movement of covered livestock. 

(a) The person directly 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) The APHIS representative, State or 

Tribal representative, or accredited 

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 5 working days. 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 

5 working days. 

(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 approved to handle ‘‘for 

slaughter only’’ animals 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. 

(6) Additionally, cattle and bison 

under 18 months of age 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

50110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(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. 

(f) Horses and other equines. Horses 

and other equines moved interstate 

must be accompanied by an ICVI or 

other interstate movement document, as 

agreed to by the shipping and receiving 

States or Tribes involved in the 

movement. 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. 

(2) They are moved directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment. 

(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. 

(4) They are moved directly from one 

State through another State and back to 

the original State. 

(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. 

§ 90.6 [Reserved] 

§ 90.7 [Reserved] 

§ 90.8 Preemption. 

The regulations in this part preempt 

State, Tribal, and local laws and 

regulations that are in conflict with 

them, except as described in this 

section. States and Tribes may require 

covered livestock that are exempt from 

official identification requirements 

under this part to be officially identified 

to be eligible for interstate movement 

into their jurisdictions; Except that: The 

State or Tribe of destination 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 5th day of 

August 2011. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20281 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3