This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

30864 

Vol. 76, No. 103 

Friday, May 27, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 11 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0030] 

RIN 0579–AD43 

Horse Protection Act; Requiring Horse 

Industry Organizations To Assess and 

Enforce Minimum Penalties for 

Violations 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the horse protection regulations to 

require horse industry organizations or 

associations that license Designated 

Qualified Persons to assess and enforce 

minimum penalties for violations of the 

Horse Protection Act (the Act) and the 

regulations. The regulations currently 

provide that such penalties will be set 

either by the horse industry 

organization or association or by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. This 

action would strengthen our 

enforcement of the Act and the 

regulations by ensuring that minimum 

penalties are assessed and enforced 

consistently by all horse industry 

organizations and associations that are 

appointed under the Act by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture to cooperate 

in our enforcement efforts. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before July 26, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2011-0030 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send one copy of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2011–0030, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2011–0030. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

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

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Rachel Cezar, Horse Protection National 

Coordinator, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 

20737; (301) 734–5784. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1970, Congress passed the Horse 

Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1821–1831), 

referred to below as the Act, to 

eliminate the practice of soring by 

prohibiting the showing or selling of 

sored horses. The regulations in 9 CFR 

part 11, referred to below as the 

regulations, implement the Act. 

In the Act, Congress found and 

declared that the soring of horses is 

cruel and inhumane. The Act states that 

the term ‘‘sore’’ when used to describe 

a horse means that: 

• An irritating or blistering agent has 

been applied, internally or externally, 

by a person to any limb of a horse, 

• Any burn, cut, or laceration has 

been inflicted by a person on any limb 

of a horse, 

• Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical 

agent has been injected by a person into 

or used by a person on any limb of a 

horse, or 

• Any other substance or device has 

been used by a person on any limb of 

a horse or a person has engaged in a 

practice involving a horse, and, as a 

result of such application, infliction, 

injection, use, or practice, such horse 

suffers, or can reasonably be expected to 

suffer, physical pain or distress, 

inflammation, or lameness when 

walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. 

(The Act excludes therapeutic treatment 

by or under the supervision of a 

licensed veterinarian from the definition 

of soring.) 

The practice of soring horses is aimed 

at producing an exaggerated show gait 

for competition. Typically, the forelimbs 

of the horse are sored, which causes the 

horse to place its hindlimbs further 

forward than normal under the horse’s 

body, resulting in its hindlimbs carrying 

more of its body weight. When the sored 

forelimbs come into contact with the 

ground, causing pain, the horse quickly 

extends its forelimbs and snaps them 

forward. This gait is known as ‘‘the big 

lick.’’ 

Soring is primarily used in the 

training of Tennessee Walking Horses, 

racking horses, and related breeds. 

Although a gait similar to ‘‘the big lick’’ 

can be obtained using selective breeding 

and humane training methods, soring 

achieves this accentuated gait with less 

effort and over a shorter period of time. 

Thus, Congress found and declared that 

horses shown or exhibited which are 

sore, where such soreness improves the 

performance of such horse, compete 

unfairly with horses which are not sore. 

Congress further found and declared 

that the movement, showing, exhibition, 

or sale of sore horses in intrastate 

commerce adversely affects and burdens 

interstate and foreign commerce. 

The Act and the regulations in § 11.2 

prohibit the use of devices, methods, 

and substances that are used to sore 

horses. For example, a person who sores 

a horse may apply a substance such as 

mustard oil or kerosene above the 

horse’s front hooves, to cause lesions. 

When chains are used on a horse sored 

in this manner, the chains rub against 

the lesions, causing pain. Thus, the 

regulations prohibit the use of any 

substance above the hoof, except 

lubricants used in certain 

circumstances. The use of mechanical 

agents (also referred to as ‘‘action 

devices’’) such as overweight chains or 

boots also cause lesions; the regulations 

only allow the use of specific types of 

action devices that scientific evidence 

indicates do not cause horses to be sore. 

Soring can also be accomplished by 

trimming the hoof to expose sensitive 

tissue, thus making it painful for the 

horse to touch its forelimbs to the 

ground. This practice is prohibited in 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30865 

1Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/ 

33601-02-KC.pdf. 

the regulations. In addition to 

prohibiting other methods and 

practices, § 11.2 also generally prohibits 

the use of any device, method, practice, 

or substance that causes or can 

reasonably be expected to cause a horse 

to be sore. 

A 1976 amendment to the Act 

provided for the Secretary of 

Agriculture to prescribe by regulation 

requirements for the appointment by the 

management of any horse show, horse 

exhibition, or horse sale or auction 

(referred to below as ‘‘show 

management’’) of persons qualified to 

detect and diagnose a horse which is 

sore or to otherwise inspect horses for 

the purpose of enforcing the Act. 

In response to that amendment to the 

Act, we established the Designated 

Qualified Persons (DQP) program in a 

final rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on January 15, 1979 

(44 FR 1558–1566), and effective on 

January 5, 1979. Under this program, 

DQPs are trained and licensed to inspect 

horses for evidence of soreness or other 

noncompliance with the Act and the 

regulations in programs sponsored by 

horse industry organizations or 

associations (HIOs). These programs 

must meet the requirements of § 11.7 of 

the regulations, which include 

requirements for licensing, training, 

recordkeeping and reporting, and 

standards of conduct, among other 

things. We certify and monitor these 

HIO programs. 

Under the regulations, show 

management has the option to either 

assume liability for any sore horses that 

are shown, exhibited, sold, or 

auctioned, or to hire DQPs to conduct 

preshow inspections of each horse 

entered in an event. Any horses found 

by the DQP to be sore, found to be 

subject to the scar rule in § 11.3, or 

found to have been subjected to any of 

the prohibited practices or devices 

listed in § 11.2 must be reported to show 

management. (The scar rule is used to 

determine whether a horse bears 

evidence of past soring, such as bilateral 

lesions or inflammation, which are 

indicative of abuse. If the horse does not 

meet the requirements of the rule, the 

horse is considered to be sore for the 

purposes of the Act and the regulations.) 

Show management must then exclude 

those horses from being shown, 

exhibited, sold, or auctioned. 

Rather than contract with DQPs 

directly, show management typically 

contracts with an HIO to provide 

inspections at its show, exhibition, sale, 

or auction. The HIO provides as many 

DQPs as are needed to provide 

inspections and pays the DQPs for their 

services. 

DQPs inspect horses according to 

procedures set out in § 11.21 of the 

regulations. This section provides 

detailed instructions on how to examine 

a horse for signs of soring, requires the 

DQP to examine the horse to ensure that 

no devices and methods used on the 

horse are prohibited by the regulations 

in § 11.2, and sets out the conditions 

under which horses must be inspected. 

It also allows DQPs to carry out 

additional inspection procedures as 

deemed necessary to determine whether 

a horse is sore. 

The Act provides us with the 

authority to pursue civil and criminal 

penalties against persons who violate 

the Act. However, such proceedings 

may be time-consuming and expensive, 

and our resources for prosecuting such 

cases are limited. In addition to 

statutory penalties, HIOs may also 

enforce their own penalties against 

persons who are found by a DQP 

licensed by the HIO to be in violation 

of the Act or the regulations. This 

allows for greater enforcement of the 

Act and the regulations. We do not 

typically pursue civil or criminal 

penalties against violators of the Act or 

the regulations when we determine that 

an HIO-imposed penalty is adequate to 

effectuate the purposes of the Act and 

the regulations. 

Accordingly, paragraph (d) of § 11.21 

requires the certified DQP organization 

(i.e., the HIO) under which the DQP is 

licensed to assess appropriate penalties 

for violations, as set forth in the rule 

book of the certified program under 

which the DQP is licensed, or as set 

forth by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (the Department). In 

addition to the DQP’s report to show 

management, the HIO must also report 

all violations to show management. 

Office of the Inspector General Audit 

Report and Recommended Minimum 

Penalties 

In September 2010, the Department’s 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

issued an audit report 1 regarding the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service’s (APHIS) administration of the 

Horse Protection Program and the 

Slaughter Horse Transport Program. The 

audit found that APHIS’ program for 

inspecting horses for soring is not 

adequate to ensure that these animals 

are not being abused. Due to this 

ineffective inspection system, the report 

stated, the Act is not being sufficiently 

enforced, and the practice of abusing 

show horses continues. 

One of the recommendations in the 

audit report was that APHIS develop 

and implement protocols to more 

consistently negotiate penalties with 

individuals who are found to be in 

violation of the Act. Having consistent 

penalties would result in more effective 

enforcement of the Act and its 

regulations. 

We agreed with this recommendation. 

We had recognized this problem before 

the issuance of the audit report and 

developed a minimum penalty protocol 

that we intended for every HIO to 

include in its rule book. In developing 

the protocol, APHIS took into account 

the civil and criminal penalties set forth 

in the Act, those penalty structures used 

in previous years, rulings of the 

Department’s Administrative Law 

Judges and the Department’s Judicial 

Officer, and input we received from 

industry stakeholders. In most cases, the 

penalties provided in the protocol are 

substantially less than those set forth in 

the Act. 

We began notifying HIOs as early as 

May 2010 that the new protocol should 

be added to 2011 rule books by the end 

of 2010. We wrote to the HIOs formally 

twice and engaged in numerous 

meetings and conversations with them 

during 2010 in an attempt to reach an 

agreement on a protocol that all of them 

would adopt. Eight of the 12 HIOs that 

license DQPs agreed to adopt the 

minimum penalty protocol we 

proposed; unfortunately, we were 

unable to reach an agreement with the 

remaining HIOs. We have determined to 

seek public input on the penalties 

contained in the protocol before 

implementing the protocol as a 

mandatory minimum set of penalties for 

every HIO that licenses DQPs. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

amend the regulations by removing the 

reference in § 11.21(d) to assessing 

penalties set forth in the rule book of the 

certified program under which the DQP 

is licensed. Instead, that paragraph 

would require HIOs to assess and 

enforce penalties for violations in 

accordance with a new § 11.25, which 

we are proposing to add to the 

regulations and which would contain 

the penalty protocol. The reporting 

requirement in § 11.21(d) would remain 

unchanged. 

Minimum Penalty Protocol 

Proposed § 11.25 would be headed 

‘‘Minimum penalties to be assessed and 

enforced by HIOs that license DQPs.’’ 

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 11.25 

would require each HIO that licenses 

DQPs in accordance with § 11.7 to 

include in its rulebook, and assess and 

enforce, penalties for the violations 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30866 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

listed in proposed § 11.25 that equal or 

exceed the penalties listed in that 

section. Section 11.41 of the regulations 

requires each HIO to submit its rulebook 

to APHIS. 

Paragraph (b) of proposed § 11.25 

would provide information about 

suspensions, which is one type of 

penalty we are proposing to require that 

HIOs assess and enforce. For violations 

that require a suspension, we are 

proposing to require the suspension of 

individuals including, but not limited 

to, the owner, manager, trainer, rider, 

custodian, and seller, as applicable, who 

are responsible for showing the horse, 

exhibiting the horse, entering or 

allowing the entry of the horse in a 

show or exhibition, selling the horse, 

auctioning the horse, or offering the 

horse for sale or auction. 

If a horse is found to be bilaterally 

sore (i.e., sored on both forelimbs or 

hindlimbs), unilaterally sore, in 

violation of the scar rule in § 11.3, or in 

violation of the prohibition against the 

use of foreign substances in § 11.2(c), we 

would provide that transporters may be 

suspended as well, if the transporter 

had reason to believe that the horse was 

to be shown, exhibited, entered for 

those purposes, sold, auctioned, or 

offered for sale. The violations listed 

may be evident during transportation of 

a horse, and section 1824 of the Act 

prohibits the shipping, transporting, 

moving, delivering, or receiving of any 

horse which is sore with reason to 

believe that such horse while it is sore 

may be shown, exhibited, entered for 

those purposes, sold, auctioned, or 

offered for sale. 

We are proposing to require that a 

person who is suspended not be 

permitted to show or exhibit any horse 

or judge or manage any horse show, 

horse exhibition, or horse sale or 

auction for the duration of the 

suspension. This proposed change is 

consistent with the Act and would 

ensure that any suspension imposed by 

an HIO would not be circumvented by 

the suspended person. 

We are also proposing to require any 

person with multiple suspensions to 

serve them consecutively, not 

concurrently. Allowing suspensions to 

be served concurrently would limit the 

deterrent effect of the suspensions. 

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 11.25 

would set out the minimum penalties 

for each type of violation. We note the 

Act provides for various civil penalties, 

among other things, disqualification 

from showing or exhibiting any horse 

and from judging or managing any horse 

show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 

auction for a period of not less than 1 

year for the first violation and not less 

than 5 years for any subsequent 

violation. 

A bilateral sore violation occurs when 

a horse is inspected in accordance with 

§ 11.21 and found to be sore in both its 

front forelimbs or hindlimbs. This is 

strong evidence of soring to produce the 

exaggerated gait mentioned earlier, 

since the horse is unlikely to have 

developed sores in either both of its 

forelimbs or hindlimbs naturally. For 

bilateral sore violations, we propose to 

require a minimum suspension of 1 year 

for the first offense, 2 years for the 

second offense, and 4 years for the third 

and any subsequent offenses. 

A unilateral sore violation occurs 

when a horse is inspected in accordance 

with § 11.21 and found to be sore in one 

of its forelimbs or hindlimbs. Such 

soring is a violation of the Act. For 

unilateral sore violations, we propose to 

require a minimum suspension of 60 

days for the first offense, 120 days for 

the second offense, and 1 year for the 

third and any subsequent offenses. 

A scar rule violation occurs when a 

horse is inspected in accordance with 

§ 11.21 and found to be in violation of 

the scar rule in § 11.3. For scar rule 

violations, we propose to require a 

minimum suspension of 2 weeks for the 

first offense, 60 days for the second 

offense, and 1 year for the third and any 

subsequent offenses. If a DQP inspects 

a horse and finds it to be both in 

violation of the scar rule and bilaterally 

sore, the HIO would be required to 

impose the penalty for bilateral soring. 

For the soring and scar rule 

violations, we are also proposing to 

require the horse to be dismissed from 

the remainder of the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. This 

dismissal would not be limited to the 

individual class in which the horse was 

to be entered; rather, the horse would be 

ineligible to participate in the entire 

event. 

Foreign substance violations occur 

when the prohibition in § 11.2(c) against 

the use of foreign substances other than 

lubricants is violated. Equipment 

violations occur when the prohibitions 

against use of certain types of 

equipment in § 11.2(b)(1) through 

(b)(10) and (b)(12) through (b)(17) are 

violated. These prohibitions can be 

violated after inspection by a DQP, for 

example, by adding a foreign substance 

or a chain weighing greater than 6 

ounces in the warmup ring. 

For foreign substance violations and 

equipment violations found before or 

during the inspection before the show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction, we are 

proposing to require the horse to be 

dismissed from the remainder of the 

horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 

This dismissal prevents the horse from 

being shown, exhibited, sold, or 

auctioned in violation of the Act. 

However, § 11.20 of the regulations 

requires the DQP to reinspect all 

Tennessee Walking Horses or racking 

horses tyed first in their class or event 

at any horse show, horse exhibition, 

horse sale, or horse auction, to 

determine whether the horse is sore or 

otherwise in violation of the Act or the 

regulations. When a violation is 

discovered after the show, the horse has 

been shown, exhibited, sold, or 

auctioned while in violation of the Act 

or the regulations promulgated under 

the Act, and the violation has taken 

place after the inspection. Therefore, we 

are proposing to require that any 

violation discovered after the show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction result in the 

imposition of a 2-week suspension in 

addition to dismissal of the horse from 

the remainder of the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. 

Shoeing violations occur when the 

prohibitions regarding the shoeing of 

horses in § 11.2(b)(18) are violated. 

Heel-toe ratio violations occur when the 

requirement in § 11.2(b)(11) that a 

horse’s toe length not exceed the height 

of the heel by 1 inch or more is violated. 

These violations are not practical to 

commit in the warmup ring, and 

therefore it is not necessary to 

differentiate between preshow and 

postshow violations. Accordingly, when 

these violations are found, we are 

proposing to require the horse to be 

dismissed from the remainder of the 

horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 

If a horse is unruly or fractious and 

cannot be inspected by a DQP in 

accordance with § 11.21, there is no way 

to determine through inspection that it 

is not in violation of the Act and the 

regulations. Therefore, we are proposing 

to require such a horse to be dismissed 

from the individual class for which it 

was to be inspected. Such a horse would 

be able to attempt inspection again in 

another class in the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction, and if it 

could be inspected, it could be entered 

in that class. 

Finally, we are proposing to require 

that any person who in any way violates 

a previously issued suspension penalty 

be suspended for an additional 6 

months. 

Paragraph (d) of proposed § 11.25 

would discuss appeals of penalties. We 

believe it is essential for each HIO that 

would assess and enforce penalties in 

accordance with proposed § 11.25 to 

have an adequate appeal process in 

place. Therefore, we are proposing to 

require the HIOs to develop such a 

process, which we would need to 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30867 

approve. For all appeals, the appeal 

would have to be granted and the case 

heard and decided by the HIO or the 

violator would have to begin serving the 

penalty within 60 days of the date of the 

violation. This would mean that an 

appeal would need to be filed and a 

decision made with respect to that 

appeal within 60 days. HIOs would be 

free to set whatever policies they 

determine to be necessary to meet that 

requirement. We are proposing this 

requirement to ensure that suspensions 

have the proper deterrent effect and that 

appeals are not used solely to delay 

suspensions. 

We would require HIOs to submit to 

the Department all decisions on penalty 

appeals within 30 days of the 

completion of the appeal, so we could 

monitor the appeal process. 

Paragraph (e) would state that the 

Department retains the authority to 

initiate enforcement proceedings with 

respect to any violation of the Act, 

including violations for which penalties 

are assessed in accordance with 

proposed § 11.25, and to impose the 

penalties authorized by the Act if the 

Department determines that such 

actions are necessary to fulfill the 

purpose of the Act and the regulations. 

In addition, paragraph (e) would 

indicate that the Department reserves 

the right to inform the Attorney General 

of any violation of the Act or of the 

regulations. The latter provision is 

consistent with section 1826 of the Act. 

Miscellaneous Changes 

As noted earlier, the regulations in 

§ 11.21(d) refer to the ‘‘certified DQP 

organization.’’ Such an organization is 

commonly referred to as an HIO; 

references to organizations that certify 

DQPs in § 11.7 refer to HIOs having a 

Department-certified DQP program. In 

order to be consistent with common 

usage and other regulations, we are 

proposing to change the reference to 

‘‘certified DQP organization’’ in 

§ 11.21(d) to instead refer to ‘‘the HIO 

that licensed the DQP.’’ 

The regulations in paragraph (g) of 

§ 11.7 provide a process for revoking the 

DQP program certification of HIOs. That 

paragraph describes the reason for 

revoking a DQP program certification as 

a failure to comply with the 

requirements of § 11.7. As additional 

requirements for HIOs with DQP 

program certifications would now be 

found in § 11.25, we are proposing for 

clarification to amend § 11.7(g) to refer 

to failure to comply with the 

requirements of 9 CFR part 11 in general 

as a reason for revoking DQP program 

certification. 

Future Changes 

As noted earlier, the OIG audit found 

that APHIS’ program for inspecting 

horses for soring is not adequate to 

ensure that these animals are not being 

abused. Our responses to the audit 

report’s recommendations included 

commitments to make several changes 

to the regulations besides those 

proposed in this document. We intend 

to propose those changes in a separate 

document, which is currently under 

development. 

After establishing the DQP program in 

the January 1979 final rule mentioned 

earlier, we made several other changes 

to the regulations in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 27, 1979 (44 FR 25172–25184), 

and effective on May 17, 1979. Some 

commenters on the proposed rule that 

preceded these final rules, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 28, 1978 (43 FR 18514–18531), 

stated that APHIS should ban the use of 

all devices except protective boots. 

We stated in the April 1979 final rule 

that such action was unwarranted at 

that time. However, we continued, if the 

horse industry made no effort to 

establish a workable self-regulatory 

program for the elimination of sore 

horses, or if such a program was 

established but did not succeed in 

eliminating the sore horse problem 

within a reasonable length of time, we 

would give serious consideration to the 

prohibition of all action devices and 

pads. 

Thirty-two years after the publication 

of the April 1979 final rule, the state of 

the industry suggests that it has not 

eliminated the cruel and inhumane 

practice of soring horses to alter their 

natural gait in order to gain a 

competitive advantage. We are 

proposing the changes in this document, 

as well as the changes in the 

forthcoming separate proposal, with the 

expectation that they will enable the 

Horse Protection program to 

successfully eliminate what Congress 

identified as the cruel and inhumane 

practice of soring. However, if these 

regulatory changes and the resulting 

changes in the Horse Protection program 

do not result in the elimination of 

soring, we will seriously consider taking 

substantially more restrictive action, 

including, but not limited to, 

prohibiting the use of all action devices 

and pads, to accomplish the goal set 

forth by Congress in the Act. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The 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). 

This proposed rule would amend the 

regulations to set a uniform minimum 

penalty protocol, which would ensure 

the uniform application of penalties by 

HIOs. The rule would also give USDA 

the authority to decertify HIOs that 

refuse to implement the minimum 

penalty protocol. 

Since the HIOs already administer 

their own individual penalty protocols 

for violations of the Horse Protection 

Act, the proposed rule is not expected 

to impose additional costs upon HIOs or 

show participants (other than those 

individuals who incur more severe 

penalties because of the rule). 

The proposed uniform penalty 

protocol may benefit the walking horse 

industry by: 

• Helping to ensure more humane 

treatment of the horses; 

• Reducing uncertainty about 

penalties for infractions of the Horse 

Protection Act; 

• Enhancing the reputation and 

integrity of the walking horse industry; 

• Providing for more fair competition 

at shows, which may positively impact 

attendance and regional economies; and 

• Improving the value of the walking 

horse breeds. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. It is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. The Act does not 

provide administrative procedures 

which must be exhausted prior to a 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30868 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 103 / Friday, May 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 11 

Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR part 11 as follows: 

PART 11—HORSE PROTECTION 

REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for 9 CFR 

part 11 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1823–1825 and 1828; 

7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7. 

§ 11.7 [Amended] 

2. In § 11.7, paragraph (g), the first 

sentence is amended by removing the 

word ‘‘section’’ the second time it 

appears and adding the word ‘‘part’’ in 

its place. 

3. In § 11.21, the section heading and 

paragraph (d) are revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 11.21 Inspection procedures for 

designated qualified persons (DQPs). 

* * * * * 

(d) The HIO that licensed the DQP 

shall assess and enforce penalties for 

violations in accordance with § 11.25 

and shall report all violations in 

accordance with § 11.20(b)(4). 

4. A new § 11.25 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 11.25 Minimum penalties to be assessed 

and enforced by HIOs that license DQPs. 

(a) Rulebook. Each HIO that licenses 

DQPs in accordance with § 11.7 must 

include in its rulebook, and enforce, 

penalties for the violations listed in this 

section that equal or exceed the 

penalties listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Suspensions. (1) For the violations 

listed in paragraph (c) of this section 

that require a suspension, individuals 

including, but not limited to, the owner, 

manager, trainer, rider, custodian, or 

seller, as applicable, who are 

responsible for showing the horse, 

exhibiting the horse, entering or 

allowing the entry of the horse in a 

show or exhibition, selling the horse, 

auctioning the horse, or offering the 

horse for sale or auction must be 

suspended. 

(2) If a horse is found to be bilaterally 

sore or unilaterally sore as defined in 

paragraph (c) of this section, in violation 

of the scar rule in § 11.3, or in violation 

of the prohibition against the use of 

foreign substances in § 11.2(c), the 

transporter of the horse may also be 

suspended if the transporter had reason 

to believe that the horse was to be 

shown, exhibited, entered for those 

purposes, sold, auctioned, or offered for 

sale. 

(3) A person who is suspended must 

not be permitted to show or exhibit any 

horse or judge or manage any horse 

show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 

auction for the duration of the 

suspension. 

(4) Any person with multiple 

suspensions must serve them 

consecutively, not concurrently. 

(c) Minimum penalties—(1) Bilateral 

sore. A horse is found to be sore in both 

its forelimbs or hindlimbs. The horse 

must be dismissed from the remainder 

of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or 

auction. First offense: Suspension for 1 

year. Second offense: Suspension for 2 

years. Third offense and any subsequent 

offenses: Suspension for 4 years. 

(2) Unilateral sore. A horse is found 

to be sore in one of its forelimbs or 

hindlimbs. The horse must be dismissed 

from the remainder of the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. First 

offense: Suspension for 60 days. Second 

offense: Suspension for 120 days. Third 

offense and any subsequent offenses: 

Suspension for 1 year. 

(3) Scar rule violation. A horse is 

found to be in violation of the scar rule 

in § 11.3. The horse must be dismissed 

from the remainder of the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. First 

offense: Suspension for 2 weeks. Second 

offense: Suspension for 60 days. Third 

offense and any subsequent offenses: 

Suspension for 1 year. 

(4) Foreign substance violations. 

Violations of the prohibition against the 

use of foreign substances in § 11.2(c). 

(i) Before or during the show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. The horse 

must be dismissed from the remainder 

of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or 

auction. 

(ii) After the show, exhibition, sale, or 

auction. Suspension for 2 weeks (14 

days). The horse must be dismissed 

from the remainder of the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. 

(5) Equipment violation. Violations of 

the equipment-related prohibitions in 

§ 11.2(b)(1) through (b)(10) and (b)(12) 

through (b)(17). 

(i) Before or during the show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. The horse 

must be dismissed from the remainder 

of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or 

auction. 

(ii) After the show, exhibition, sale, or 

auction. Suspension for 2 weeks (14 

days). The horse must be dismissed 

from the remainder of the horse show, 

exhibition, sale, or auction. 

(6) Shoeing violation. Violation of the 

shoeing-related prohibitions in 

§ 11.2(b)(18). The horse must be 

dismissed from the remainder of the 

horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 

(7) Heel-toe ratio. Violation of the 

heel-toe ratio requirement in 

§ 11.2(b)(11). The horse must be 

dismissed from the remainder of the 

horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 

(8) Unruly or fractious horse. A horse 

that cannot be inspected in accordance 

with § 11.21. The horse must be 

dismissed from the individual class for 

which it was to be inspected. 

(9) Suspension violation. A violation 

of any suspension penalty previously 

issued. Suspension for an additional 6 

months (180 days) for each occurrence. 

(d) Appeals. The HIO must provide a 

process in its rulebook for alleged 

violators to appeal penalties. The 

process must be approved by the 

Department. For all appeals, the appeal 

must be granted and the case heard and 

decided by the HIO or the violator must 

begin serving the penalty within 60 days 

of the date of the violation. The HIO 

must submit to the Department all 

decisions on penalty appeals within 30 

days of the completion of the appeal. 

(e) Departmental prosecution. The 

Department retains the authority to 

initiate enforcement proceedings with 

respect to any violation of the Act, 

including violations for which penalties 

are assessed in accordance with this 

section, and to impose the penalties 

authorized by the Act if the Department 

determines that such actions are 

necessary to fulfill the purpose of the 

Act and this part. In addition, the 

Department reserves the right to inform 

the Attorney General of any violation of 

the Act or of this part, including 

violations for which penalties are 

assessed in accordance with this 

section. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

May 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13231 Filed 5–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1