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

6 

Vol. 80, No. 1 

Friday, January 2, 2015 

1The section currently refers to such facilities as 

‘‘approved livestock facilities.’’ However, for 

reasons that we discuss later in this document, we 

are proposing to revise this term to ‘‘approved 

livestock marketing facilities.’’ For the sake of 

consistency, we refer to the facilities as approved 

livestock marketing facilities throughout this 

document. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86 

[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0018] 

RIN 0579–AE02 

Livestock Marketing Facilities 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the regulations governing approval of 

facilities that receive livestock moved in 

interstate commerce. We are also 

proposing several amendments to the 

conditions under which livestock may 

move to such facilities without official 

identification or prior issuance of an 

interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection or alternative 

documentation. These changes are 

necessary to update the regulations 

governing livestock marketing facilities, 

while also helping ensure animal 

disease traceability of livestock that are 

moved in interstate commerce to such 

facilities. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before March 3, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2014–0018, 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-2014-0018 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading 

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

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Neil Hammerschmidt, Program 

Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851– 

3539. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR subchapter 

B contain requirements governing 

Cooperative State-Federal programs for 

the control or eradication of diseases of 

livestock. The regulations in 9 CFR 

subchapter C contain requirements for 

the interstate movement of livestock to 

prevent the dissemination of diseases of 

livestock within the United States. In 

the remainder of this document, we 

refer to these two subchapters 

collectively as ‘‘the regulations.’’ 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 71, 

‘‘General provisions,’’ contain general 

requirements regarding the movement of 

livestock in interstate commerce within 

the United States. Section 71.20, 

‘‘Approval of livestock facilities,’’ 

provides that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) may approve a 

livestock facility to receive livestock 

that are moved interstate under 

conditions that are afforded only to such 

approved facilities. As a general 

condition for approval of a facility, the 

person legally responsible for the dayto-day operations of the livestock 

facility must execute an agreement with 

APHIS regarding the manner in which 

the facility will operate, if approved. 

The provisions of the agreement are set 

forth in the regulations. 

However, the agreement set forth in 

§ 71.20 is antiquated, and thus contains 

provisions that were necessary when 

diseases of livestock were more 

prevalent in the United States, but that 

currently rarely come into play during 

the day-to-day operations of a particular 

facility. We have therefore evaluated the 

agreement in order to determine which 

provisions are still necessary. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 86, 

‘‘Animal Disease Traceability,’’ provide 

minimum national official identification 

and recordkeeping requirements for the 

traceability of livestock moving 

interstate. 

Section 86.4 provides the official 

identification devices and methods that 

the Administrator of APHIS has 

approved for various species of 

livestock moving interstate, and 

generally requires livestock to be 

officially identified prior to moving 

interstate. 

The section also provides a number of 

exemptions from this general 

requirement. One of these exemptions, 

found in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the 

section, allows cattle and bison to be 

moved interstate without official 

identification if they are moved directly 

to no more than one approved livestock 

marketing facility 1 and then directly to 

a recognized slaughtering establishment 

and additionally if they are moved 

interstate with a USDA-approved 

backtag or a USDA-approved backtag is 

applied to them at the approved 

livestock marketing facility or the 

recognized slaughtering establishment. 

Section 86.5 provides general 

documentation requirements for 

livestock moving interstate. The section 

provides, as a general requirement, that 

livestock leaving a premises for 

interstate movement must be 

accompanied by an interstate certificate 

of veterinary inspection (ICVI). 

The section also provides a number of 

exemptions from this general 

requirement. One of these exemptions, 

found in paragraph (c)(1) of the section, 

allows cattle and bison to be moved 

without an ICVI if they are moved 

directly to an approved livestock 

marketing facility and then directly to a 

recognized slaughtering facility and are 

accompanied by an owner-shipper 

statement. Another exemption, found in 

paragraph (c)(2), allows cattle and bison 

to be moved without an ICVI if they are 

moved directly to an approved livestock 

marketing facility under an ownershipper statement and are not 

subsequently moved interstate from the 

facility unless accompanied by an ICVI. 

We have received several requests to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 7 

reconsider or clarify aspects of the 

exemptions. 

We are proposing to make a number 

of changes to the regulations. Below, we 

discuss the changes that we are 

proposing to make, by topic. 

Approved Livestock Marketing Facilities 

Currently, the regulations refer, in 

various instances, to ‘‘approved 

livestock facilities,’’ ‘‘approved 

stockyards,’’ and ‘‘specifically approved 

stockyards’’ in order to describe 

livestock facilities that have been 

approved in accordance with § 71.20. 

We are proposing to replace all such 

references with the term ‘‘approved 

livestock marketing facilities.’’ 

Similarly, we are proposing to replace 

all references in the regulations to 

‘‘livestock facilities’’ with ‘‘livestock 

marketing facilities.’’ We believe the 

term ‘‘livestock marketing facility’’ 

appropriately describes a variety of 

different facilities, such as stockyards, 

auction barns, and buying stations, that 

share the common distinction of being 

locations where livestock moving in 

interstate commerce are marketed. We 

also believe the term helps differentiate 

livestock marketing facilities from other 

locations, such as slaughtering facilities 

and quarantine lots, that receive 

livestock moved in interstate commerce 

but that do not market such animals. 

Finally, it would also differentiate 

livestock marketing facilities from 

private production facilities, such as 

feed lots, dairies, farms, and ranches. 

Proposed Revisions to Part 71 

We are proposing to revise § 71.20. 

Paragraph (a) of § 71.20 would contain 

requirements that apply to all livestock 

marketing facilities regardless of 

whether they have sought APHIS 

approval. All livestock marketing 

facilities would have to allow APHIS or 

State representatives to collect blood 

samples, conduct testing, and carry out 

operations and measures at the facilities 

in order to detect, control, and eradicate 

diseases and pests of livestock. In order 

to carry out these operations and 

measures, APHIS or State 

representatives could request records 

and receipts retained by the facilities 

that pertain to these disease and pest 

detection, control, and eradication 

efforts, and the facilities would have to 

provide any records or receipts so 

requested. Additionally, all livestock 

marketing facilities would have to 

maintain a record of the receipt, 

distribution, and application of all 

official identification devices and 

USDA-approved backtags at the facility. 

Under section 8308 of the Animal 

Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 

8301 et seq.), APHIS may carry out 

operations and measures to detect, 

control, or eradicate any pest or disease 

of livestock, including the drawing of 

blood and diagnostic testing of animals 

at points of livestock concentration. 

Paragraph (a) of § 71.20 would, in part, 

restate this statutory authority. 

When APHIS exercises this authority 

at a livestock marketing facility in order 

to respond to disease or pest outbreaks, 

it is usually in order to trace known or 

potentially infected or infested animals 

forward or back through their chain of 

production and determine what other 

animals may have commingled with the 

animals under investigation. In order to 

do that, APHIS reviews records of 

official identification devices and 

USDA-approved backtags applied to 

livestock at a marketing facility, as well 

as other records retained by the facility 

as part of common business practices. 

To the extent that these records are 

incomplete, or the facility delays in 

sharing them with APHIS, the 

possibility of an incomplete trace—and, 

commensurately, the likelihood of 

disease or pest spread—increases. Thus 

it is necessary to require facilities to 

maintain for a 5 year period a record of 

the receipt, distribution, and application 

of all official identification devices and 

USDA-approved backtags at the facility, 

and to provide these and any other 

receipts or records that pertain to 

disease or pest detection, control, or 

eradication efforts to APHIS or State 

officials working in cooperation with 

APHIS, when requested. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of § 71.20 

would contain our approval process for 

livestock marketing facilities. Similar to 

the existing requirements for livestock 

facilities, to qualify for approval by 

APHIS as an approved livestock 

marketing facility and to retain such 

designation, the individual legally 

responsible for the day-to-day 

operations of the facility, or his or her 

agent, would have to execute an 

agreement with APHIS. At the 

discretion of APHIS, a State animal 

health official could also be a 

cosignatory on the agreement. 

We would allow the individual 

legally responsible for the day-to-day 

operations of the facility to authorize an 

agent to execute the agreement in case 

the individual would prefer that his or 

her legal counsel review and execute the 

agreement on his or her behalf. We 

would allow a State animal health 

official to be a cosignatory on the 

agreement in order to codify a 

longstanding operational practice that 

we instituted out of recognition of the 

degree of oversight that State animal 

health authorities exercise over such 

facilities. 

We are proposing to remove the terms 

of the agreement from the regulations. 

Instead, the terms would be contained 

in a document titled the ‘‘Approved 

Livestock Marketing Facility 

Agreement.’’ The Approved Livestock 

Marketing Facility Agreement, a draft of 

which we are making available for 

review as a supporting document for 

this proposed rule, would be added to 

the Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards, found at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/

downloads/ADT_standards.pdf, as an 

appendix if this proposed rule is 

finalized. It could also be obtained by 

writing to APHIS Veterinary Services 

(VS) headquarters or calling a district 

APHIS VS office. 

We are proposing to add a definition 

of Approved Livestock Marketing 

Facility Agreement to § 71.1, which 

contains definitions of the terms used in 

the general provisions regulations. We 

would define Approved Livestock 

Marketing Facility Agreement as an 

agreement between a livestock 

marketing facility and APHIS that is 

executed in accordance with § 71.20, in 

which the facility agrees to adhere to the 

structural and procedural standards 

specified within the agreement. 

The Approved Livestock Marketing 

Facility Agreement would be similar in 

structure and content to the existing 

agreement in § 71.20, with a few 

substantive revisions: 

• We would remove a requirement 

that an accredited veterinarian, State 

representative, or APHIS representative 

must be on the premises at all times on 

sale days to perform duties in 

accordance with State and Federal 

regulations. 

• In its place, we would add a 

requirement specifying that the facility 

must allow Federal and State 

representatives to perform duties at the 

facility in accordance with Federal and 

State regulations, as requested, and 

requirements specifying that accredited 

veterinarians must be available (either 

physically present or on-call) on sale 

days in order to provide any inspection 

of livestock that is required by the 

regulations before the animals leave the 

facility and to issue ICVIs, as necessary. 

• We would add a provision 

specifying that APHIS or the State will 

inspect each approved facility at least 

twice yearly. 

We are proposing to remove the 

requirement that an accredited 

veterinarian, State representative, or 

APHIS representative must be on the 

premises at all times on sale days to 

perform duties in accordance with State 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and Federal regulations because it has 

presented logistical problems in recent 

years at some facilities. 

When this requirement was 

established, diseases of livestock were 

more prevalent in the United States. For 

this reason, livestock marketing 

facilities were more likely to receive 

animals that posed a high risk of 

spreading diseases of livestock. For 

example, it was common enough for 

such facilities to receive cattle that were 

potentially infected with brucellosis 

that APHIS’ cooperative Federal-State 

brucellosis eradication program 

required first-point testing of all 

susceptible cattle that entered a 

livestock marketing facility. Therefore, 

at the time, it was necessary for a 

Federal or State representative or 

accredited veterinarian to be present at 

the facility on all sale days in order to 

conduct this required testing and to 

ensure that any high-risk animals that 

entered the facility were adequately 

isolated from other livestock at the 

facility. 

The prevalence of Program diseases 

has decreased significantly since that 

time. The brucellosis eradication 

program no longer requires first-point 

testing of cattle that enter livestock 

marketing facilities, and it is rare that 

livestock marketing facilities receive 

cattle or bison that are potentially 

infected with brucellosis or other highrisk animals. Accordingly, the primary 

function that Federal and State 

representatives and accredited 

veterinarians currently fulfill at 

livestock marketing facilities is issuing 

ICVIs for livestock that will be moved 

interstate from the facility. Additionally, 

while the current regulations provide 

that Federal or State representatives 

may issue such ICVIs, in recent years, 

accredited veterinarians have issued the 

vast preponderance of such ICVIs. 

Depending on what classes of animals 

are sold, how many are sold, and to 

whom they are sold, only a few ICVIs 

may need to be issued at a livestock 

marketing facility on a sale day. Thus, 

requiring an accredited veterinarian to 

be present at the facility all day on every 

sale day could represent an inefficient 

use of that veterinarian’s services. 

However, we recognize that, if certain 

classes of livestock arrive at an 

approved livestock marketing facility 

without an accompanying ICVI and will 

move interstate from the facility, an 

ICVI may need to be issued before the 

livestock leave the facility after sale. 

Thus, we are proposing to require that 

all approved livestock marketing 

facilities must have an accredited 

veterinarian available (either physically 

present or on-call) on sale days in order 

to provide inspection of livestock before 

the animals leave the facility and to 

issue ICVIs, as necessary. 

In the event that Federal or State 

personnel require access to the facility 

in order to perform duties at the facility 

in accordance with Federal and State 

regulations, the facility would have to 

provide such access. Similarly, APHIS 

or the State would inspect approved 

facilities at least twice a year in order to 

ensure that the facility continues to 

operate in accordance with the 

agreement. The results of such 

inspections would factor into any 

decision to withdraw approval of the 

facility. 

Currently, § 71.20 contains provisions 

regarding the denial of approval of a 

facility. Our proposed revision to 

§ 71.20 would modify these provisions. 

The provisions are currently written in 

a manner which could be interpreted to 

provide that APHIS will enter into an 

agreement with a livestock marketing 

facility prior to evaluating the facility’s 

ability to operate in accordance with the 

agreement. Practically speaking, 

however, we do not enter into such an 

agreement unless we have evaluated the 

facility’s ability to adhere to the 

agreement. 

We would retain, with nonsubstantive editorial changes, the 

provisions of § 71.20 that pertain to 

withdrawal of approval for a livestock 

facility. We would also retain the 

provisions that pertain to a facility’s 

ability to appeal denial or withdrawal of 

approval. 

We would, however, remove 

provisions allowing a hearing to be held 

in certain instances if approval is 

denied or withdrawn. We would do so 

in order to reflect current Agency 

practices. This does not mean that 

facilities would lose the ability to 

appeal APHIS’ decisions, but rather that 

the appeal would be made in writing to 

the Agency itself rather than submitting 

an appeal through a hearing process. 

Proposed Revisions to Part 86 

Meaning of ‘‘No More Than One’’ 

As we mentioned earlier in this 

document, § 86.4 generally requires 

livestock to be officially identified prior 

to moving interstate. As we also 

mentioned, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the 

section allows cattle and bison to be 

moved interstate without official 

identification, if they are moved directly 

to no more than one approved livestock 

marketing facility and then directly to a 

recognized slaughtering establishment 

and additionally if they are moved 

interstate with a USDA-approved 

backtag or a USDA-approved backtag is 

applied to them at the approved 

livestock marketing facility or the 

recognized slaughtering establishment. 

Producers, market managers, and 

State animal health officials have asked 

us to clarify the meaning of the phrase 

‘‘no more than one’’ approved livestock 

marketing facility in this paragraph of 

the regulations. In particular, they have 

asked whether this exemption pertains 

solely to interstate movement, and 

whether cattle and bison may move 

intrastate to a livestock marketing 

facility and then interstate to another 

livestock marketing facility under this 

exemption. 

In response to this request from 

stakeholders to clarify the intent of the 

phrase, we are proposing to revise 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of § 86.4 to provide 

that the exemption pertains only to 

cattle and bison moved interstate from 

their farm of origin to an approved 

livestock marketing facility. We are 

proposing to define farm of origin in 

§ 86.1 as ‘‘any farm where livestock are 

produced, or any farm on which they 

are maintained for at least 4 consecutive 

months prior to interstate movement.’’ 

We are proposing this clarification 

because the exemption in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) is appropriate only for 

movement directly from the farm of 

origin. If cattle and bison have moved 

from their farm of origin intrastate— 

especially if they have been 

commingled with animals from different 

premises after leaving their farm—and 

are subsequently discovered to be 

affected with a disease or infested with 

a pest of livestock after inspection or 

testing at an approved livestock 

marketing facility, it is very difficult to 

conduct thorough and timely trace-back 

procedures unless the cattle or bison are 

officially identified. 

Meaning of ‘‘Directly To An Approved 

Livestock Marketing Facility’’ 

Section 86.5 generally requires that 

livestock leaving a premises for 

interstate movement must be 

accompanied by an ICVI. However, 

paragraph (c)(1) of the section allows 

cattle and bison to be moved without an 

ICVI if they are moved directly to an 

approved livestock marketing facility 

and then directly to a recognized 

slaughtering facility, and are 

accompanied by an owner-shipper 

statement. Similarly, paragraph (c)(2) of 

the section allows cattle and bison to be 

moved without an ICVI if they are 

moved directly to an approved livestock 

marketing facility under an ownershipper statement and do not move 

interstate from the facility unless 

accompanied by an ICVI. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 9 

To more clearly state the intent of the 

regulation, we are proposing to amend 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of § 86.5 to 

provide that the exemption pertains 

only to cattle and bison moved 

interstate from their farm of origin to an 

approved livestock marketing facility. 

We are proposing the clarification 

because the exemptions are appropriate 

only for such movements. If cattle or 

bison have been commingled with 

animals from different premises, there is 

a higher risk of disease introduction and 

a correspondingly higher risk that the 

interstate movement of the cattle or 

bison may contribute to the spread of 

diseases of livestock. Accordingly, we 

believe that it is necessary that such 

animals be accompanied by an ICVI in 

order to have assurances about their 

health status. 

Regarding the exemption in paragraph 

(c)(2) of § 86.5 that allows cattle and 

bison to be moved without an ICVI if 

they are moved directly to an approved 

livestock marketing facility with an 

owner-shipper statement and are not 

moved interstate from the facility unless 

accompanied by an ICVI, producers and 

State animal health officials have stated 

that, pursuant to § 71.20, approved 

livestock marketing facilities are 

required to record and maintain most of 

the information that is contained on an 

owner-shipper statement for all 

livestock that enter the facility. They 

have also stated that, operationally, 

livestock markets often record 

information equivalent to that contained 

on an owner-shipper statement. In such 

instances, producers and State animal 

health officials have asked whether the 

records could be used in lieu of an 

owner-shipper statement. 

After reviewing the relevant 

provisions of the agreement in § 71.20 

and how they have been implemented 

operationally, we agree with producers 

and State animal health officials that the 

information maintained by approved 

livestock marketing facilities for all 

livestock that enter the facility often 

includes all categories of information 

that are required on an owner-shipper 

statement. Thus, we are proposing to 

allow cattle and bison to be moved 

interstate to an approved livestock 

marketing facility without an 

accompanying owner-shipper statement, 

provided a State animal health official 

has waived the need for the ownershipper statement and all of the 

information required for an ownershipper statement is recorded as soon as 

the cattle or bison are offloaded at the 

approved livestock marketing facility 

and this record is maintained in 

accordance with the record retention 

requirements located in § 86.3. 

Application of USDA-Approved 

Backtags 

Finally, we have received several 

requests to amend the traceability 

regulations to specify where USDAapproved backtags must be applied on 

cattle and bison. (Section 71.18 had 

contained such information; however, 

the final rule that established the 

traceability regulations removed these 

provisions from the regulations.) Some 

requests have suggested that we amend 

the traceability regulations to require 

that the backtags be applied behind the 

shoulders of the cattle or bison. They 

have stated that this facilitates removing 

the backtags more efficiently at 

slaughter, when the cattle or bison are 

suspended from their hind legs. Others 

have stated that it is easier to apply the 

tags closer to the hip, and that retention 

rates are generally higher in that 

location, and have asked us to amend 

the traceability regulations accordingly. 

We can see a rationale for both 

placements, and therefore request 

public comment regarding whether we 

should amend the regulations to specify 

a location for placing the backtags, and, 

if so, where it should be. We also 

request public comment whether, 

instead of a regulatory requirement, 

preferred placement of the tags should 

be a guideline or recommendation 

within the Animal Disease Traceability 

General Standards. 

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 5 U.S.C. 603, we 

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

We are proposing to amend the 

regulations governing approval of 

facilities that receive livestock moved in 

interstate commerce. We are also 

proposing several amendments to the 

conditions under which livestock may 

move to such facilities without official 

identification or prior issuance of an 

interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection or alternative 

documentation. These changes are 

necessary to update the regulations 

governing livestock marketing facilities, 

while also helping ensure animal 

disease traceability of livestock that are 

moved in interstate commerce to such 

facilities. 

APHIS expects the cattle industry 

would be the livestock sector 

principally affected by this rule. 

Livestock marketing facilities would be 

directly affected and certain cattle 

production enterprises that move cattle 

interstate may also be affected. 

Most livestock marketing facilities 

qualify as small according to Small 

Business Administration guidelines. 

Most cattle enterprises are small family 

farms. As is true for other cattle 

operations, incremental costs of the rule 

for these facilities will depend on 

current routine management practices, 

and whether the enterprise is already 

receiving cattle interstate. 

Livestock marketing facilities could 

experience cost savings as a result of the 

proposed rule. We are proposing to 

remove the requirement that an 

accredited veterinarian, State 

representative, or APHIS representative 

must be on the premises at all times on 

sale days to perform duties in 

accordance with State and Federal 

regulations. 

In recent years, this role has most 

often been fulfilled by accredited 

veterinarians. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) reported that 

veterinarians earned a median wage of 

$40.61 per hour in 2012. This likely 

overestimates the median wages of large 

animal veterinarians, however BLS 

statistics do not specify wages by type 

of veterinary practice. 

The proposed rule would relax the 

requirement to have an accredited 

veterinarian present. We are proposing 

to require that the facility must allow 

Federal and State representative to 

perform their duties as requested and 

that all approved livestock marketing 

facilities must have an accredited 

veterinarian available (either physically 

present or on-call) on sale days in order 

to provide inspection of livestock before 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the animals leave the facility and to 

issue ICVIs, as necessary. 

Livestock producers also may benefit 

from the proposed rule. APHIS is 

proposing to allow cattle and bison to be 

moved interstate to an approved 

livestock marketing facility without an 

accompanying owner-shipper statement, 

provided a State animal health official 

has waived the need for the ownershipper statement and all of the 

information required for an ownershipper statement is recorded as soon as 

the cattle or bison are offloaded at the 

approved livestock marketing facility 

and this record is maintained in 

accordance with the record retention 

requirements of the regulations. As this 

provision reduces documentation and 

recordkeeping requirements, we 

anticipate that any economic effect on 

producers would be beneficial. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If adopted, this rule: (1) 

Would preempt State and local laws and 

regulations that are in conflict with this 

rule, as provided in § 86.8; (2) would 

have no retroactive effect; and (3) would 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

9 CFR Part 51 

Animal diseases, Cattle, Hogs, 

Indemnity payments, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

9 CFR Part 71 

Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry 

and poultry products, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

9 CFR Part 75 

Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

9 CFR Part 78 

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

9 CFR Part 85 

Animal diseases, Livestock, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

9 CFR Part 86 

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, 

Interstate movement, Livestock, Official 

identification, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Traceability. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86 as 

follows: 

PART 51—ANIMALS DESTROYED 

BECAUSE OF BRUCELLOSIS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 2. Section 51.1 is amended by adding, 

in alphabetical order, a definition of 

Approved livestock marketing facility 

and by removing the definition of 

Specifically approved stockyard. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 51.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Approved livestock marketing facility. 

A stockyard, livestock market, buying 

station, concentration point, or any 

other premises under State or Federal 

veterinary supervision where livestock 

are assembled and that has been 

approved under § 71.20 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

§ 51.3 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 51.3, footnotes 3 and 4 are 

redesignated as footnotes 2 and 3, 

respectively. 

§ 51.6 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 51.6 is amended as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), the words ‘‘a 

specifically approved stockyard’’ are 

removed and the words ‘‘an approved 

livestock marketing facility’’ are added 

in their place, and in paragraph (b), the 

words ‘‘a stockyard approved by the 

Administrator’’ are removed and the 

words ‘‘an approved livestock marketing 

facility’’ are added in their place. 

■ b. Footnote 5 is redesignated as 

footnote 4. 

§ 51.29 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 51.29, in paragraph (a)(2), the 

words ‘‘approved stockyard’’ are 

removed and the words ‘‘approved 

livestock marketing facility’’ are added 

in their place. 

PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 6. 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. 

■ 7. Section 71.1 is amended as follows: 

■ a. The definition of Approved 

livestock facility is removed; 

■ b. The definitions of Approved 

livestock marketing facility and 

Approved Livestock Marketing Facility 

Agreement are added in alphabetical 

order; 

■ c. The definition of Livestock market 

is removed; 

■ d. The definition of Livestock 

marketing facility is added in 

alphabetical order; and 

■ e. In the definition of Swine 

production system, the word ‘‘markets’’ 

is removed and the words ‘‘marketing 

facilities’’ are added in its place. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 71.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Approved livestock marketing facility. 

A stockyard, livestock market, buying 

station, concentration point, or any 

other premises under State or Federal 

veterinary supervision where livestock 

are assembled and that has been 

approved under § 71.20. 

Approved Livestock Marketing 

Facility Agreement. An agreement 

between a livestock marketing facility 

and APHIS that is executed in 

accordance with § 71.20, in which the 

facility agrees to adhere to the structural 

and procedural standards specified 

within the agreement. 

* * * * * 

Livestock marketing facility. A 

stockyard, buying station, concentration 

point, or any other premises where 

livestock are assembled for sale or sale 

purposes. 

* * * * * 

§ 71.19 [Amended] 

■ 8. In § 71.19, in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

and paragraph (g) introductory text, the 

words ‘‘livestock market’’ are removed 

and the words ‘‘livestock marketing 

facility’’ are added in their place. 

■ 9. Section 71.20 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 71.20 Livestock marketing facilities. 

(a) Livestock marketing facilities; 

general requirements. All livestock 

marketing facilities (even those not 

approved by APHIS) must allow APHIS 

or State representatives to collect blood 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11 

samples, conduct testing, and carry out 

operations and measures at the facilities 

in order to detect, control, and eradicate 

diseases and pests of livestock. In order 

to carry out these operations and 

measures, APHIS or State 

representatives may request records and 

receipts retained by the facilities that 

pertain to these disease or pest 

detection, control, and eradication 

efforts, and facilities must provide any 

records or receipts so requested. All 

livestock marketing facilities must 

maintain for a 5 year period a record of 

the receipt, distribution, and application 

of all official identification devices and 

USDA-approved backtags at the facility. 

(b) Approved livestock marketing 

facilities—(1) Approval. To qualify for 

approval by APHIS as an approved 

livestock marketing facility and to retain 

such designation, the individual legally 

responsible for the day-to-day 

operations of the facility must operate in 

accordance with the Approved 

Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement. 

The Approved Livestock Marketing 

Facility Agreement is provided in the 

Animal Disease Traceability General 

Standards, found at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/

downloads/ADT_standards.pdf. It may 

also be obtained by writing to APHIS 

Veterinary Services, 4700 River Road 

Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, or 

by calling a district APHIS Veterinary 

Services office, phone numbers for 

which are provided in local telephone 

directories. The Agreement must be 

executed by the individual or his or her 

agent and APHIS. At the discretion of 

APHIS, a State animal health official 

may also be a cosignatory on the 

agreement. While a facility is an 

approved livestock marketing facility, 

the provisions in this chapter pertaining 

to approved livestock marketing 

facilities apply to the facility. 

(2) Denial of approval. The 

Administrator may deny approval of a 

livestock marketing facility if he or she 

determines that the facility is not 

maintained or will not be maintained in 

accordance with the Approved 

Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement. 

(3) Withdrawal of approval. The 

Administrator may withdraw approval 

of a livestock marketing facility if: 

(i) The individual legally responsible 

for the day-to-day operations of the 

facility, or his or her agent, notifies the 

Administrator, in writing, that the 

facility no longer handles livestock 

moved interstate under this chapter; 

(ii) The individual who executed the 

Approved Livestock Marketing Facility 

Agreement pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section is no longer legally 

responsible for the day-to-day 

operations of the facility; or 

(iii) The Administrator determines 

that the livestock facility is or has not 

been maintained and operated in 

accordance with the Approved 

Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement 

executed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(4) Appeal. The individual legally 

responsible for the day-to-day 

operations of the facility or his or her 

agent will be notified by APHIS of the 

reasons for any denial or withdrawal, 

and may appeal the denial or 

withdrawal in writing to APHIS within 

10 days of such notification. The appeal 

must include all of the facts and reasons 

on which the facility relies to show that 

the reasons for the denial or withdrawal 

are incorrect or do not support denial or 

withdrawal of approval. APHIS will 

grant or deny the appeal in writing as 

promptly as circumstances permit, 

stating the reason for the decision. 

(Approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget under control 

numbers 0579–0258 and 0579–0342) 

§ 71.21 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 71.21, footnotes 8 and 9 are 

redesignated as footnotes 1 and 2. 

PART 75—COMMUNICABLE 

DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES, 

PONIES, MULES, AND ZEBRAS 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 75 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 12. Section 75.4 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), the definition of 

Approved stockyard is removed and a 

definition of Approved livestock 

marketing facility is added in 

alphabetical order; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of 

Operator, the words ‘‘specifically 

approved stockyard’’ are removed and 

the words ‘‘approved livestock 

marketing facility’’ are added in their 

place; and 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory 

text, the words ‘‘approved stockyard’’ 

are removed each time they appear and 

the words ‘‘approved livestock 

marketing facility’’ are added in their 

place. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 75.4 Interstate movement of equine 

infectious anemia reactors and approval of 

laboratories, diagnostic facilities, and 

research facilities. 

(a) * * * 

Approved livestock marketing facility. 

A stockyard, livestock market, buying 

station, concentration point, or any 

other premises under State or Federal 

veterinary supervision where livestock 

are assembled and that has been 

approved under § 71.20 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS 

■ 13. 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. 

■ 14. Section 78.1 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. The term Approved livestock 

marketing facility is added to the list of 

defined terms and a definition of 

Approved livestock marketing facility is 

added to the section in alphabetical 

order; 

■ b. In the definition of Official test, the 

words ‘‘specifically approved 

stockyards’’ are removed each time they 

appear and the words ‘‘approved 

livestock marketing facilities’’ are added 

in their place, once at paragraph 

(a)(1)(i)(C) introductory text, twice at 

paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C)(1), and once at 

paragraph (a)(7); 

■ c. In the definition of Originate, in 

paragraph (c), the words ‘‘a specifically 

approved stockyard’’ are removed and 

the words ‘‘an approved livestock 

marketing facility’’ are added in their 

place; 

■ d. In the definition of Quarantined 

feedlot, in paragraph (a), the words ‘‘a 

specifically approved stockyard’’ are 

removed both times they appear and the 

words ‘‘an approved livestock marketing 

facility’’ are added in their place at 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (5); and 

■ e. The term Specifically approved 

stockyard is removed from the list of 

defined terms, the definition of 

Specifically approved stockyard is 

removed from the section. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 78.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Approved livestock marketing facility. 

A stockyard, livestock market, buying 

station, concentration point, or any 

other premises under State or Federal 

veterinary supervision where livestock 

are assembled and that has been 

approved under § 71.20 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

§ 78.7 [Amended] 

■ 15. In § 78.7, paragraph (a)(3), the 

words ‘‘a specifically approved 

stockyard’’ are removed and the words 

‘‘an approved livestock marketing 

facility’’ are added in their place. 

§ 78.8 [Amended] 

■ 16. In § 78.8, the words ‘‘a specifically 

approved stockyard’’ are removed each 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

time they appear and the words ‘‘an 

approved livestock marketing facility’’ 

are added in their place. 

§ 78.9 [Amended] 

■ 17. In § 78.9, the words ‘‘a specifically 

approved stockyard’’ are removed each 

time they appear and the words ‘‘an 

approved livestock marketing facility’’ 

are added in their place, and the words 

‘‘the specifically approved stockyard’’ 

are removed each time they appear and 

the words ‘‘the approved livestock 

marketing facility’’ are added in their 

place. 

§ 78.10 [Amended] 

■ 18. Section 78.10 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. The words ‘‘a specifically approved 

stockyard’’ are removed each time they 

appear and the words ‘‘an approved 

livestock marketing facility’’ are added 

in their place, and the words ‘‘the 

specifically approved stockyard’’ are 

removed each time they appear and the 

words ‘‘the approved livestock 

marketing facility’’ are added in their 

place; and 

■ b. Footnote 4 is redesignated as 

footnote 2. 

§ 78.11 [Amended] 

■ 19. Section 78.11 introductory text is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘a 

specifically approved stockyard’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘an approved 

livestock marketing facility’’ in their 

place, and by removing the words ‘‘the 

specifically approved stockyard’’ both 

times they appear and adding the words 

‘‘the approved livestock marketing 

facility’’ in their place. 

§ 78.12 [Amended] 

■ 20. Section 78.12 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), the 

words ‘‘a specifically approved 

stockyard’’ are removed each time they 

appear and the words ‘‘an approved 

livestock marketing facility’’ are added 

in their place; 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory 

text, the words ‘‘specifically approved 

stockyard’’ are removed and the words 

‘‘approved livestock marketing facility’’ 

are added in their place; and 

■ c. Footnote 5 is redesignated as 

footnote 3. 

§ 78.22 [Amended] 

■ 21. In § 78.22, in paragraph (a)(3) 

introductory text, the words ‘‘a 

specifically approved stockyard’’ are 

removed and the words ‘‘an approved 

livestock marketing facility’’ are added 

in their place. 

§ 78.23 [Amended] 

■ 22. In § 78.23, the words ‘‘a 

specifically approved stockyard’’ are 

removed each time they appear and the 

words ‘‘an approved livestock marketing 

facility’’ are added in their place. 

PART 85—PSEUDORABIES 

■ 23. The authority citation for part 85 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 24. Section 85.1 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. The definition of Approved 

livestock market is removed and a 

definition of Approved livestock 

marketing facility is added in alphabetic 

order; and 

■ b. Footnotes 4 through 10 are 

redesignated as footnotes 2 through 8, 

respectively. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 85.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Approved livestock marketing facility. 

A stockyard, livestock market, buying 

station, concentration point, or any 

other premises under State or Federal 

veterinary supervision where livestock 

are assembled and that has been 

approved under § 71.20 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

§ 85.7 [Amended] 

■ 25. In § 85.7, the words ‘‘approved 

livestock market’’ are removed each 

time they appear and the words 

‘‘approved livestock marketing facility’’ 

are added in their place. 

§ 85.8 [Amended] 

■ 26. In § 85.8, the words ‘‘approved 

livestock market’’ are removed each 

time they appear and the words 

‘‘approved livestock marketing facility’’ 

are added in their place. 

PART 86—ANIMAL DISEASE 

TRACEABILITY 

■ 27. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 28. Section 86.1 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In the term Approved livestock 

facility, the word ‘‘marketing’’ is added 

before the word ‘‘facility’’; and 

■ b. A definition of the term Farm of 

origin is added in alphabetical order. 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 86.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Farm of origin. Any farm where 

livestock are produced, or any farm on 

which they are maintained for at least 

4 consecutive months prior to interstate 

movement. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. In § 86.4, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 86.4 Official identification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Cattle and bison may also be 

moved interstate without official 

identification if they are moved directly 

to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment or are moved directly 

from their farm of origin to an approved 

livestock marketing facility and then 

directly to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment, where they are harvested 

within 3 days of arrival; and 

(A) They are moved interstate with a 

USDA-approved backtag; or 

(B) A USDA-approved backtag is 

applied to the cattle or bison at the 

recognized slaughtering establishment 

or federally approved livestock 

marketing facility. 

(C) If a determination to hold the 

cattle or bison for more than 3 days is 

made after the animals arrive at the 

slaughter establishment, the animals 

must be identified in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 30. In § 86.5, paragraph (c) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.5 Documentation requirements for 

interstate movement of covered livestock. 

* * * * * 

(c) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison 

moved interstate must be accompanied 

by an ICVI unless: 

(1) They are moved directly from their 

farm of origin to a recognized 

slaughtering establishment, or directly 

from their farm of origin to an approved 

livestock marketing facility and then 

directly to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment, and they are 

accompanied by an owner-shipper 

statement. 

(2) They are moved directly from their 

farm of origin to an approved livestock 

marketing facility with an ownershipper statement and do not move 

interstate from the facility unless 

accompanied by an ICVI. A State animal 

health official may waive the 

requirement for an owner-shipper 

statement to accompany such cattle and 

bison, provided that: 

(i) All the information required for the 

owner-shipper statement is recorded as 

soon as the cattle or bison are offloaded 

at the approved livestock marketing 

facility; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13 

(ii) This record is maintained in 

accordance with § 86.3(b). 

(3) They are moved from the farm of 

origin for veterinary medical 

examination or treatment and returned 

to the farm of origin without change in 

ownership. 

(4) They are moved directly from one 

State through another State and back to 

the original State. 

(5) They are moved as a commuter 

herd with a copy of the commuter herd 

agreement or other document as agreed 

to by the States or Tribes involved in the 

movement. 

(6) Additionally, cattle and bison may 

be moved between shipping and 

receiving States or Tribes with 

documentation other than an ICVI, e.g., 

a brand inspection certificate, as agreed 

upon by animal health officials in the 

shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 

(7) The official identification number 

of cattle or bison must be recorded on 

the ICVI or alternate documentation 

unless: 

(i) The cattle or bison are moved from 

an approved livestock marketing facility 

directly to a recognized slaughtering 

establishment; or 

(ii) The cattle or 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. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

December 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–30752 Filed 12–31–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

25 CFR Part 256 

[K00103 12/13 A3A10; 134D0102DR– 

DS5A300000–DR.5A311.IA000113; BIA– 

2014–0004] 

RIN 1076–AF22 

Housing Improvement Program 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

is proposing to amend its regulations 

governing its Housing Improvement 

Program, which is a safety-net program 

that provides grants for repairing, 

renovating, or replacing existing 

housing and for providing new housing. 

This proposed rule is an important part 

of the Tiwahe initiative, which is 

designed to promote the stability and 

security of Indian families. The 

proposed rule would align the program 

with other Federal requirements, allow 

leveraging of housing funds to increase 

the number of families served and 

projects funded, and expedite 

processing of waiting lists for housing 

assistance. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 6, 2015. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document for dates of tribal 

consultations. Comments on the 

information collections contained in 

this proposed regulation are separate 

from those on the substance of the rule. 

Comments on the information collection 

burden should be received by February 

2, 2015 to ensure consideration, but 

must be received no later than March 6, 

2015. The dates of tribal consultations 

are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

—Federal rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. The rule is 

listed under the agency name ‘‘Bureau 

of Indian Affairs.’’ The rule has been 

assigned Docket ID: BIA–2014–0004. 

—Mail or hand delivery: Elizabeth K. 

Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory 

Affairs & Collaborative Action, Indian 

Affairs, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1849 C St. NW., Mail Stop 

3642–MIB, Washington, DC 20240. 

Comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collections 

contained in this rule are separate from 

comments on the substance of the rule. 

Please submit comments on the 

information collection requirements in 

this rule to the Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior by email at 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or by 

facsimile at (202) 395–5806. Please also 

send a copy of your comments to 

consultation@bia.gov. 

Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document 

for information on tribal consultation 

sessions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Les Jensen, Division of Housing 

Assistance, Bureau of Indian Affairs at 

(907) 586–7397. Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service at 1 (800) 877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. You may also view the 

information collection request as 

submitted to OMB at www.reginfo.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Housing Improvement Program 

(HIP) is a safety-net program that 

provides grants for the cost of services 

to repair, renovate, or replace existing 

housing and provide new housing for 

eligible members of federally recognized 

Indian tribes. The BIA administers the 

HIP under the regulations at 25 CFR part 

256. The BIA distributes HIP funding 

based on a priority ranking derived from 

a point system to identify those 

individuals and families most in need of 

housing assistance. Funding is restricted 

to individuals and families that reside 

in the tribe’s service area. In Fical Year 

(FY) 2014, the HIP will serve 

approximately 140 recipients. These 

recipients are individuals and families 

with extremely low incomes. 

II. Changes Proposed Rule Would Make 

This proposed rule would update 

various provisions to align the HIP with 

other Federal program requirements, 

allow leveraging of housing funds to 

increase the number of families served 

and projects funded, and provide tribes 

with flexibility to better address lengthy 

waiting lists of tribal members awaiting 

housing assistance. 

Categories of Assistance and Funding 

Limits 

Currently, the HIP provides funding 

for four categories of housing needs: 

• Category A—for repair of existing 

homes 

• Category B—for renovation of 

existing homes 

• Category C–1—for construction of 

replacement homes 

• Category C–2—for new housing. 

For each category, there is a monetary 

limit on the amount of funding a 

recipient may receive. The proposed 

rule would increase the limit for 

Category A funding from $2,500 to 

$7,500 and increase the limit for 

Category B funding from $35,000 to 

$60,000. The original limits are 

inadequate, given the average costs of 

repair and renovation. These limit 

increases will better reflect the actual 

costs of repair and renovation. The 

proposed rule would also add a new 

category of housing need for down 

payment assistance. 

Ranking Factors 

Currently, priority ranking is based on 

total numeric value (points) received 

under the ranking factors. The ranking 

factors are based on the applicant’s 

annual household income, whether 

there is an aged person living in the 

house, whether there is a disabled 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS