This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

14703 

Vol. 74, No. 61 

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. 00–094–2] 

RIN 0579–AB84 

Interstate Movement of Sheep and 

Goats 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations regarding the interstate 

movement of animals to add sheep and 

goats to the approved livestock facility 

agreement. Livestock facilities that 

handle sheep and goats in interstate 

commerce must meet the requirements 

for approval including complying with 

this agreement to utilize certain 

provisions in our scrapie regulations 

that reduce the movement requirements 

for sheep and goats moving to or from 

these establishments. Such facilities 

may include stockyards, livestock 

markets, buying stations, concentration 

points, or any other premises where 

sheep and goats in interstate commerce 

are assembled. Our approval will be 

contingent on the facility operator 

meeting certain minimum standards and 

other conditions related to the receipt, 

handling, and release of sheep and goats 

at the facility, as well as complying with 

certain animal identification and 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

standards and other conditions will 

serve, in part, to support our regulations 

relating to the interstate movement of 

sheep and goats in order to control the 

spread of scrapie, a serious disease of 

sheep and goats. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Diane Sutton, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

Ruminant Health Programs, National 

Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734– 

6954. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 26, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 52451– 

52461, Docket No. 00–094–1) a 

proposed rule to amend our regulations 

governing the interstate movement of 

sheep and goats to require livestock 

facilities that handle sheep and goats in 

interstate commerce to be approved by 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) if they want to take 

advantage of provisions in our scrapie 

regulations in 9 CFR part 79 that reduce 

the movement requirements for sheep 

and goats moving to or from these 

establishments. Approval would be 

contingent on the facility operator 

meeting certain minimum standards and 

certain other conditions relating to 

receipt, handling, and release of sheep 

and goats at the facility, as well as 

complying with certain animal 

identification and recordkeeping 

requirements. The proposed standards 

and other conditions were based, in 

part, on our regulations relating to the 

interstate movement of sheep and goats 

in order to control the spread of scrapie, 

a serious disease of sheep and goats. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending October 

25, 2004. We received nine comments 

by that date. The comments came from 

private citizens, a livestock marketer 

and marketing association, wool 

growers associations, a sheep industry 

association, a farm bureau association, 

and a veterinary medical association. 

The comments generally supported the 

proposed rule. They did, however, raise 

several issues associated with the 

proposed rule. Those issues are 

discussed below. 

Some commenters said that the 

definitions of exposed animal and highrisk animal in 9 CFR parts 54 and 79 did 

not properly describe animals that pose 

a true risk for the spread of scrapie 

based on current science. These 

commenters stated that genetically 

resistant sheep pose a minimal risk of 

transmitting scrapie and therefore 

should not be required to be 

quarantined at assembly points as 

proposed. In addition, the commenters 

stated that the definitions in the 

proposed rule excluded some animals 

that could pose a risk, such as 

genetically susceptible animals that 

have resided on infected premises. 

We agree with the commenters and 

intend to modify the definitions in 9 

CFR 54.1 and 79.1 in a future 

rulemaking. In our proposed rule, we 

proposed requiring exposed sheep that 

have not also been designated as highrisk animals be kept in quarantine pens 

away from other animals at livestock 

facilities. Because we agree with the 

commenters that genetically resistant 

exposed sheep pose a minimal risk of 

transmitting scrapie, we have removed 

the provision from this final rule. 

Some commenters asked for 

clarification of the term ‘‘breeding sheep 

and goats,’’ which is not spelled out in 

the existing regulations. They said that 

a single, clear definition of breeding 

sheep and goats would help clarify both 

existing identification requirements and 

the additional requirements described 

in the proposed rule. 

We agree with the commenters and 

have added the following definition of 

breeding sheep and goats to § 71.1: 

‘‘Any sexually intact sheep or goat that 

is not moving either directly to 

slaughter or through one or more 

restricted sales and/or terminal feedlots 

and then directly to slaughter.’’ 

Several commenters requested 

clarification of the definition of a 

facility. The proposed rule suggests that 

a facility has permanent pens, etc., but 

some commenters stated that some 

business owners gather sheep for resale 

in interstate commerce using portable 

pens and loading ramps. The 

commenters believe that this portable 

equipment should be exempt from a 

definition of a facility. 

Becoming an approved livestock 

facility for sheep and goats is only 

required if a facility wishes to utilize the 

provisions in part 79 that reduce the 

movement requirements for animals 

moving to or from these facilities, such 

as the ability to accept unidentified 

animals in interstate commerce that 

otherwise would have been required to 

be identified before entering the facility. 

As such it places no additional burden 

on facilities that are not currently 

approved, or on tent shows or other 

informal gatherings that use portable 

equipment. 

A few commenters requested 

clarification of ‘‘interstate commerce,’’ 

14704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

which is defined in part as trade, traffic, 

or transportation of livestock interstate. 

The commenters noted that some sheep 

might cross State lines without 

ownership change and noted that there 

are also producers who buy and sell 

replacement females across State lines. 

The commenters asked if these types of 

movement are to be exempt from the 

proposed requirements which relate to 

the inspection of facilities, etc. If so, 

they stated, that exemption needs to be 

clearly spelled out; if not, then an 

exemption should be provided, as these 

activities by and of themselves are not 

likely to cause the dissemination of 

scrapie. 

The movement of animals by private 

agreement or without transfer of 

ownership is governed by the 

requirements of part 79, and their 

premises of origin are not considered 

livestock facilities for the purposes of 

§ 71.20. 

Some commenters questioned why 

the proposed rule did not include a 

requirement for high-risk or exposed 

sheep intended for slaughter to be kept 

in pens apart from the general 

population of sheep and goats, 

especially those that may return to a 

farm for breeding. They pointed out that 

if any of these high-risk animals have 

lambed or may lamb in the livestock 

facility, they could introduce scrapie 

contamination into the environment. 

We agree with the commenters and 

will revise paragraph (a)(5) of § 71.20 to 

read: ‘‘Any reactor, suspect, exposed, 

high-risk, or scrapie-positive livestock 

shall be held in quarantined pens apart 

from all other livestock at the facility. 

This requirement shall not apply to 

scrapie exposed sheep that are not also 

designated high-risk animals or to sheep 

or goats designated under 9 CFR part 79 

as scrapie exposed or high-risk animals 

that either are not pregnant based on the 

animal being male, an owner 

certification that any female animals 

have not been exposed to a male in the 

preceding 6 months, or a certificate 

issued by an accredited veterinarian 

stating that the animals are open; or that 

the animals are under 12 months of age 

and are not visibly pregnant and are 

maintained in the same pen only with 

other animals that will be moved 

directly to slaughter or to a terminal 

feedlot in accordance with 9 CFR parts 

71 and 79.’’ This is intended to prevent 

potential breeding animals from being 

exposed to scrapie during the time they 

are held in an approved livestock 

facility while allowing exposed and 

high-risk slaughter lambs and kids to 

move through markets. 

We will also change 71.20(a)(11) to 

add ‘‘and the quarantined animal gave 

birth or aborted at the facility’’ after ‘‘if 

the disease of concern is scrapie.’’ This 

will significantly reduce the number of 

times the disinfection procedure 

specified in 9 CFR 54.7(e)(2) will be 

required in addition to the standard 

disinfection procedure. 

One commenter noted that the 

proposed rule would require that 

facility operators separate breeding and 

slaughter animals at all times, but 

questioned how operators are to 

distinguish between animals for 

breeding and animals for slaughter. The 

commenter pointed out that sorting 

animals might entail a substantial 

amount of time being added to the 

check-in process, and that the increased 

time in unloading at the facility could 

be detrimental to the well-being of the 

animals. 

In response to this comment, we are 

changing the wording of 

§ 71.20(a)(17)(iv) from ‘‘breeding and 

slaughter animals must be separated at 

all times so that no contact will occur’’ 

to ‘‘sexually intact animals that do not 

meet the requirements of part 79 to be 

sold as breeding animals must be 

maintained in separate enclosures at all 

times from animals that may be offered 

for sale as breeding animals unless all 

animals maintained in an enclosure 

arrived at the facility as part of the same 

consignment and are separated prior to 

sale.’’ 

One commenter stated that the market 

approval requirement to provide 

quarantine pens for reactor, suspect, or 

exposed sheep or goats makes no sense 

since the approval requirements also 

prohibit ‘‘the sale of any reactor, 

suspect, or exposed livestock, and any 

livestock that show signs of being 

infected with any communicable 

disease.’’ The commenter asserted that 

market operators are unlikely to know 

the disease status of the animals 

entering their market, and even if the 

animals were known to be reactors, 

exposed, or suspect, the market 

operators would refuse to receive them 

for sale. 

We agree it is unlikely that these 

animals would be found at a market. 

However, if they are found, it is 

important that they be segregated. These 

animals could be placed in a nonspecies specific quarantine pen that 

could be disinfected after the affected 

animals were removed. An APHIS or 

State animal health official must be 

notified immediately when such 

animals are quarantined. We also agree 

that facilities should not have to 

indicate that they will handle classes of 

animals that are prohibited from sale 

and are amending § 71.20(a)(17) 

accordingly. 

Some commenters said that it is not 

clear if businesses doing less than 

$750,000 in sales per year will be 

exempted from the requirements. The 

commenters further said that such small 

businesses pose little threat to the 

nation’s economy because of the 

transport of sheep infected with scrapie 

and their transactions should be 

protected. 

The $750,000 figure included in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

proposed rule represents the threshold 

established by the Small Business 

Administration for transition between 

small and large entities and has nothing 

to do with compliance requirements. 

Businesses doing less that $750,000 in 

sales per year will not be exempt from 

these regulations. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

about a lack of resources for 

enforcement and that APHIS will expect 

the States and private enterprise to 

handle enforcement without offering 

sufficient funding. 

APHIS establishes the necessary 

regulations on interstate commerce to 

conduct disease eradication, control, 

and surveillance programs. The States, 

through cooperative agreements and 

memorandums of understanding with 

APHIS, support these efforts by 

promulgating the necessary laws and 

regulations and undertaking associated 

compliance and enforcement activities 

within the State. The standards that 

States must meet to qualify as 

Consistent States are described in § 79.6; 

as we are not amending that section in 

this rule, we do not agree that States are 

being assigned additional enforcement 

responsibilities. Some States currently 

work collaboratively with APHIS on 

market approvals and would likely 

continue to do so. Private enterprises 

are required to comply with the 

regulations, not enforce them. 

One commenter noted that the issue 

of individual animal identification is 

hampered by the fact that there is no 

technology currently available that is 

workable at the speed of commerce and 

is affordable to the sheep and goat 

industry. The commenter stated that 

until a suitable technology is available, 

APHIS cannot assume that individual 

identification records can be kept on 

sheep and goats. 

We agree with the commenter that in 

some circumstances reading and 

recording of pre-existing identification 

numbers may be impractical and are 

taking steps in conjunction with the 

sheep and goat industry ID working 

group to identify appropriate ID 

methods which meet the needs of 

commerce, the needs of disease 

eradication and surveillance programs, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14705 

1USDA/NASS, Sheep and Goats, January 2008. 

2USDA/NASS, Meat Animal Production, 

Disposition, and Income: 2007 Summary, April 

2008. 

3USDA/NASS, Livestock Slaughter: 2007 

Summary, March 2008. The national average sale 

price of a sheep between 2003 and 2007 was $132 

(=(119 + 130 + 141 + 134 + 138)/5) per head (USDA/ 

NASS, 2008 Agricultural Statistics). Note that these 

average sale prices reflect the sale of millions of 

slaughter sheep, selling near the average price, and 

a few thousand valuable registered breeding sheep 

selling for much more. The average price for 

registered breeding sheep is in the range of $300, 

with some selling for thousands of dollars (http:// 

showcase.netins.net/web/sam/ccd.htm). 

4The average price for goats between 2003 and 

2007 was $72 (=(63.3 + 67.2 + 75.9 + 78.5 + 74.8)/ 

5) per head USDA/NASS, 2008 Agricultural 

Continued 

and the economics of sheep and goat 

production. As appropriate technologies 

are identified, they will be introduced 

through the scrapie eradication program 

and industry initiatives. Until this is 

achieved, we will continue to follow the 

established identification requirements 

in 9 CFR 79.2. 

One commenter asserted that there are 

incorrect statements made in the rule, 

for example: ‘‘Most of the sheep and 

lambs shipped for immediate slaughter 

would not be affected by the proposed 

rule since they would not be handled by 

a livestock market or other assembly 

point en route to the slaughter facility.’’ 

The commenter asserted that most 

sheep and lambs are handled by 

livestock markets and other assembly 

points (dealers or feed yards) sometime 

during their lifetimes. As supporting 

evidence, the commenter asserted that 

of the approximately 170,595 head of 

sheep exported to Mexico in 2003, 

probably 95 percent came through a 

market or some other dealer in Texas. 

The commenter also asserted that many 

of the kid goats and lambs that are sold 

for immediate slaughter to 

slaughterhouses all over the United 

States go through markets first. 

We acknowledge the major role of 

markets in the movement of lambs and 

cull sheep into and through slaughter 

channels; however, we believe it is 

accurate that more than 50 percent of 

slaughter animals do not move directly 

to slaughter through livestock facilities 

that would require approval under this 

rule. 

Some commenters said that there was 

an inconsistency between the current 

recordkeeping requirements for 

livestock facilities and the proposed 

requirements, specifically with respect 

to how long the records must be kept. 

Given this, the commenters stated, 

clarification of the distinction between 

the recordkeeping schedule for sheep 

and goats and that for other species may 

be warranted in the final rule. 

Approved markets that handle sheep 

and goats would have to agree to 

maintain records in a manner consistent 

with the requirements of the scrapie 

eradication program in 9 CFR part 79. 

Those recordkeeping requirements 

support the need for tracing activities 

for a disease with an incubation period 

of 4 to 5 years in most cases. 

Some commenters stated that the 

current regulations are sufficient and 

that there is no need to add additional 

requirements. They stated that current 

efforts to eradicate scrapie through 

genetic selection in show animals 

would do more than any new 

regulations, and furthermore the 

proposed rule would add to the 

economic burden on producers and be 

detrimental to the health of the 

industry. 

In order for the United States to 

eradicate scrapie, we must be able to 

trace all infected and exposed animals. 

To do this we need to increase 

compliance with the identification 

requirements in 9 CFR part 79. 

Accelerating the scrapie eradication 

program could help the United States 

sheep and goat industry to become more 

competitive in both the domestic and 

global market. Since both actual product 

quality and purchaser’s perception of 

quality contribute to continued market 

acceptance, efforts to eradicate scrapie 

will serve the economic interests of the 

industry. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The 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. 

This final regulatory flexibility 

analysis examines the rule’s expected 

costs and benefits in accordance with 

requirements of the Office of 

Management and Budget for regulatory 

analysis and its expected impact on 

small entities, in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. This analysis 

for the final rule follows an earlier 

analysis that was prepared for the 

proposed rule, and takes into account 

public comment received in response to 

the proposed rule. There were no public 

comments in response to the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

Overview of U.S. Sheep and Goat 

Industry Operations, Inventory, and 

Trade 

Production and trade: As of January 1, 

2008, there were 6.055 million sheep 

and lambs in 67,160 operations, and 

values at $836 million.1 This number 

represented a 1.9 percent inventory 

decline from January 1, 2000. The above 

total consists of 4.505 million breeding 

sheep and lambs and 1.55 million 

market sheep. Of the breeding sheep, 

ewes, 1 year old or older, totaled 3.617 

million, replacement lambs were 0.695 

million, and rams totaled 0.193 million. 

Sheep are produced in all parts of the 

United States, although stock levels vary 

from State to State. Ten States 

(Colorado, California, Idaho, Montana, 

Iowa, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, 

Utah, and Wyoming) account for nearly 

68 percent of the total inventory, with 

most in the Mountain, North Central, 

and South Central areas. These States 

also account for about 81 percent of 

incoming shipments, indicating most 

sheep and sheep meat production 

activities take place in these States.2

Northern and southeastern States have 

the smallest sheep populations, 

accounting only for 7.8 percent of the 

total. 

A total of about 4.8 million sheep and 

lambs were marketed in 2007. A little 

over 84 percent of these are lambs and 

the rest mature sheep. Marketing 

includes animals for slaughter market, 

younger animals shipped to other States 

for feeding and breeding purposes, and 

some exports. Most animals shipped for 

immediate slaughter will not be affected 

by this rule. A total of 2.69 million 

sheep and lambs were slaughtered in 

2007, of which 95 percent were lambs.3

In 2002 (the latest year for which 

detailed data is available for goats), 

there were 91,462 goat operations in the 

United States, which raised about 2.53 

million goats, valued at approximately 

$141 million, an increase of about 12 

percent from the 1997 level. About 11.9 

percent were Angora goats, about 11.5 

percent were milk goats, and 76.6 

percent were goats other than Angora or 

milk-type. The State of Texas accounted 

for about 47 percent of the goat 

inventory. Other important goat raising 

States are Alabama, California, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, and Tennessee. These States 

together represented another 24 percent 

of the U.S. goat holdings. Goat holdings 

vary in size and degree of 

commercialization, with many 

producers relying on other sources of 

income. With an average holding of 

about 28 goats, most, if not all, goat 

operations are relatively small, and are 

classified as small entities with annual 

sales of $750,000 or less.4 Of the total 

14706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Statistics). The annual prices are from various 

issues of Agricultural Statistics. The goat quantities 

are from the 2002 Census of Agriculture. As in the 

case of sheep there is variability in the market value 

of goats. Market values can vary depending on 

whether the animal is a slaughter goat, Angora goat, 

dairy goat, crossbred or purebred, etc. Boer goats are 

considered to be the most expensive goats with 

some commanding well over $50,000 for one Boer 

buck and over $10,000 for purebred does 

(www.jackmauldin.com/new.htm). 

5USDA/NASS, Livestock Slaughter: 2004 

Summary, March 2005; USDA/ERS, Livestock, 

Dairy, and Poultry Outlook/LDP–M–172/October 

17, 2008. 

6 Global Trade Atlas, November 2008. 

number of operations, about 74 percent 

of goat producers were full owners, 

about 21 percent were part owners, and 

5 percent were tenants. 

The United States produced about 183 

million pounds of lamb and mutton in 

2007, a decline of about 43 percent from 

a decade earlier. Imports of lamb and 

mutton increased from 42.1 million 

pounds in 1991 to 183.9 million pounds 

in 2007, an increase of about 337 

percent.5

An increasing proportion of domestic 

demand for lamb and mutton is met by 

imports. The share of imports in 

domestic consumption of lamb and 

mutton increased from about 11 percent 

in 1991 to about 50 percent in 2007. 

Even with such increased imports both 

total consumption as well as per capita 

consumption of lamb declined. Total 

consumption declined from about 396 

million pounds to 367 million pounds, 

a decline of about 8 percent. 

Trade 

The United States has a limited 

foreign trade both in live sheep and 

goats and their products. Both the 

sources of imports and destination of 

exports are concentrated in a few 

countries. During calendar year 2007, 

the U.S. exported 116,618 sheep valued 

at $8.148 million (see table 1). Mexico 

(65,075 head) and Canada (50,808 head) 

accounted for over 95 percent of this 

total. Other importers were St. Vincent 

and the Grenadines (37), Ecuador (323), 

the Bahamas (22), and Guyana (20). The 

United States also exported 9,231 goats 

valued at $597,000 in 2007. Again, the 

primary importers were Mexico (7,211 

head) and Canada (1,697). Other 

destinations included St. Vincent and 

the Grenadines, which imported 323 

goats. 

TABLE 1—SHEEP AND GOATS: IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, 2007 

Item Imports Exports Numbers Value in 

millions 

Sheep ............................................................................................................... 92 $0.058 116,618 $8.148 

Goats ............................................................................................................... 33 0.010 9,231 0.597 

Total .......................................................................................................... 125 0.068 125,849 8.745 

Source: Global Trade Atlas, November 2008. 

The U.S. imported 92 sheep valued at 

$58,000 in 2007. The sheep imports in 

2007 were from Canada (84 head), 

Australia (6) and New Zealand (2). 

Additionally, the U.S. imported 33 goats 

valued at $10,000 in 2007, all from 

Australia. The average value of an 

imported sheep ($630) is higher than the 

average value of an exported sheep 

($70). Likewise, the average value of an 

imported goat ($300) is higher than the 

average value of an exported goat ($65). 

In 2007, the United States imported 

207 million pounds of sheep and goat 

meat valued at $490.5 million and 

exported 9.2 million pounds of sheep 

and goat meat valued at $11.7 million. 

Most lamb and mutton imports came 

from Australia and New Zealand. The 

U.S. exports are distributed to a larger 

number of markets.6 Since imports of 

sheep and goats represent a very small 

fraction of domestic supply, most 

interstate movements would involve 

domestic sheep and goats. 

Expected Costs and Benefits 

There are currently 107 facilities that 

handle sheep and 62 facilities that 

handle goats moving in interstate 

commerce. These facilities would have 

to provide access to accredited 

veterinarians, State representatives, and 

APHIS representatives, as well as 

comply with certain notification 

requirements with respect to livestock 

known to be infected, exposed, or 

suspect, or that show signs of being 

infected with a communicable disease if 

they want to take advantage of 

provisions in our scrapie regulations in 

9 CFR part 79 that reduce the movement 

requirements for sheep and goats 

moving to or from these establishments. 

Such facilities also would have to keep 

State animal health officials and APHIS 

informed of upcoming sale days at the 

facility. Some of the livestock facilities 

covered by this rule are already subject 

to these requirements as approved 

livestock facilities handling other 

classes of livestock. 

To be approved, such livestock 

facilities also would have to follow 

certain identification, recordkeeping, 

and handling practices with respect to 

sheep or goats under their control as 

provided in 9 CFR parts 71 and 79. 

Documents such as weight tickets, sales 

slips, and records of origin, 

identification, and destination relating 

to livestock at the facility would have to 

be maintained by the facility for a 

period of 5 years. Some of these 

requirements are already provided for 

elsewhere in the regulations, and thus 

would not represent a new burden. Still, 

any new paperwork and administrative 

burdens may result in additional cost to 

facility operators who find it necessary 

to adjust their operations to meet the 

new requirements. However, the 

additional activities are not expected to 

be significant for most facilities. 

The livestock facility and its 

equipment would have to be maintained 

in a state of good repair. Chutes, pens, 

alleys, and sales rings would have to be 

well constructed and well lighted for 

the inspection, identification, 

vaccination, testing, and branding of 

livestock. Electrical outlets would have 

to be provided at the chute area for 

branding purposes. The facility, 

including yards, docks, pens, alleys, 

sale rings, chutes, scales, means of 

conveyance, and their associated 

equipment would have to be maintained 

in a clean and sanitary condition. The 

operator of the facility would be 

responsible for maintaining an adequate 

supply of disinfectant and serviceable 

equipment for cleaning and 

disinfection. Meeting these standards 

could entail additional costs for some 

livestock facilities seeking to qualify as 

approved livestock facilities. Since most 

of these conditions represent good 

business practices and most facilities 

already follow them, it is not expected 

to be a significant issue. Most of these 

facilities are already complying with 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14707 

7The Small Business Administration defines 

small market facilities (NAICS 424520) as those 

having fewer than 100 employees. 

8Based on the size standard established by the 

Small Business Administration for livestock and 

animal specialties, sheep producers (NAICS 

112410) and goat producers (NAICS 112420) with 

not more than $0.75 million in annual sales qualify 

as small entities. 

these conditions as approved livestock 

facilities handling other classes of 

livestock. Therefore, this rule should 

not result in a significant effect on 

facilities conducting their business. 

In addition, as a condition of 

approval, reactor, suspect, exposed, 

scrapie high-risk, or scrapie-positive 

livestock would have to be held in 

quarantine pens apart from all other 

livestock at the facility except exposed 

sheep that are not also high-risk animals 

or exposed and high-risk animals that 

are segregated from breeding animals 

and that do not pose a significant risk 

of lambing or kidding while in the 

facility. The quarantine pens in which 

such animals are held would have to be 

clearly marked and would have to be 

cleaned and disinfected before being 

used to hold other animals not affected 

with diseases. The quarantine pens 

would also have to have proper drainage 

and be constructed of materials that are 

substantially impervious to moisture 

and able to withstand continued 

cleaning and disinfection. The 

regulations in 9 CFR 71.20(a)(5) already 

require that approved livestock facilities 

hold any reactor, suspect, or exposed 

livestock in quarantine pens apart from 

all other livestock at the facility. 

Facilities handling sheep or goats that 

do not have quarantine pens would 

likely incur a one-time capital 

investment of about $3,000 to $5,000 to 

install such a pen. Otherwise, the 

number of reactor, suspect, exposed, 

scrapie high-risk, or scrapie-positive 

livestock handled by approved livestock 

facilities is expected to be very small, 

and thus quarantining of such animals 

should not have a significant effect on 

facility operations or economic activity. 

Furthermore, producers who are 

engaged in intrastate and interstate 

marketing may also pay higher 

consignment fees as approved facilities 

pass their increased costs of providing 

services to affected producers. Other 

costs to producers of this action could 

result for those animals requiring 

special handling at livestock facilities. 

This rule could result in a small 

increase in the time that APHIS and 

State representatives spend monitoring 

livestock facilities. In those cases where 

a facility is already operating as an 

approved livestock facility for other 

classifications of livestock, and APHIS 

and State representatives are already on 

site, the addition of sheep and goats to 

the classifications of livestock covered 

by the agreement is unlikely to 

substantially increase the workload for 

those representatives. APHIS and State 

representatives monitor compliance at 

such facilities with the identification 

requirements of the scrapie regulations 

in 9 CFR part 79. Thus, any additional 

monitoring responsibilities on the part 

of State or Federal representatives that 

may result from implementation of this 

rule could be handled by existing staff. 

This rule should not affect the 

interstate flow of sheep and goats. The 

interstate movement of sheep and goats 

is important as it reduces interstate 

price differences faced by consumers of 

livestock products and it allows 

movement of sheep and goats from areas 

of surplus to areas of deficit. A majority 

of sheep and goats moving across State 

lines are slaughter animals. Although 

we do not have specific data, based on 

our observation of livestock markets and 

the sheep and goat industry, we believe 

that most of these slaughter animals 

move directly to the slaughterhouse and 

bypass the types of livestock facilities 

that are the subject of this rule. In 

addition, the operators of livestock 

facilities that agree to handle animals 

affected by scrapie would be the entities 

most affected by this rule. However, the 

number of sheep and goats affected by 

scrapie and handled by these livestock 

facilities is likely to be very small. This 

rule should not post a significant 

burden on operators of livestock 

facilities or producers and is not 

expected to reduce interstate commerce 

or retard economic availability. 

In spite of the potential small burdens 

to livestock facility operators and 

producers, the long-term avoided costs 

of coping with losses associated with 

scrapie by the U.S. sheep and goat 

industries as a result of accelerating the 

scrapie eradication program far exceed 

the potential costs of this rule. This 

includes the avoidance of veterinary 

and associated costs for managing 

scrapie-affected flocks. An APHIS 

estimate showed that scrapie costs the 

U.S. sheep industry about $24 million 

per year in losses. This includes an 

estimated $10 million in lost breeding 

stock and embryo sales, $10.5 million in 

disposal costs for offal, and $2.8 million 

in lost meat and bone meal sales. 

Accelerating the eradication of scrapie 

in the United States also could facilitate 

movement of the U.S. sheep and goat 

industries toward increased 

competitiveness both in the domestic 

and global markets, particularly in the 

export of live sheep and goats. 

Currently, producers in countries such 

as Australia and New Zealand have a 

competitive advantage over U.S. 

producers, based in part on the absence 

of scrapie in those countries. The 

achievement of ‘‘scrapie-free’’ status in 

the United States could neutralize the 

competitive advantage of such 

countries. 

Since both actual product quality as 

well as purchasers’ perception of quality 

contribute to continued market 

acceptance, efforts to eradicate scrapie 

and secure the health of U.S. sheep and 

goats will continue to serve the 

economic interests of the industry and 

the nation. 

Effects on Small Entities 

This rule will affect livestock facilities 

that handle sheep and goats in interstate 

commerce, including stockyards, 

livestock markets, buying stations, 

concentration points, or any other 

premises under State or Federal 

veterinary supervision where sheep or 

goats have been assembled and which 

choose to become an approved livestock 

facility. These facilities are considered 

small if they have 100 or fewer 

employees (North American Industry 

Classification System [NAICS] 424520).7

There are currently about 1,106 

livestock facilities that handle cattle and 

calves, swine, or sheep and goats 

moving in interstate commerce. Of this 

total, about 107 handle sheep and 62 

handle goats, and all are considered to 

be small entities. 

Producers of sheep or goats (NAICS 

112410) also could be affected by the 

rule if livestock facilities pass on the 

increased costs of providing services 

attributable to the rule to affected 

producers. There were 44,189 sheep 

operations and 43,495 goat operations 

that sold animals in 2002. An operation 

engaged in sheep or goat production is 

considered small if it has annual sales 

of not more that $750,000.8 Small 

operations, as shown in table 2, 

accounted for over 99 percent of all 

operations that sold sheep and lambs. 

About 81 percent of the producers sold 

fewer than 100 animals each, but these 

accounted only for about 17 percent of 

total sales of sheep and lambs. On the 

other hand, large sheep operations that 

sold 5,000 sheep or more represented 

less than 1 percent of the farms but 

accounted for about 32 percent of the 

total number sold. The overall average 

size of a flock was 117 animals in 2002. 

The average size of a flock on large 

operations was 11,094 animals, while 

that on small operations was 80 

animals. The vast majority of sheep and 

goat producers would be considered 

small entities based on such criteria. Of 

14708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

the total number of operations, about 68 

percent of producers were full owners, 

about 26 percent were part owners and 

6 percent were tenants. Approximately 

81 percent of these sheep are marketed, 

involving crossing State lines in most 

cases. 

TABLE 2—SHEEP AND LAMBS: NUMBER SOLD BY SIZE OF FLOCK: 2002 

Number of sheep/lambs per farm 

Number of 

farms with 

sheep/lambs 

Percent farms 

(based on total 

farms) 

Inventory of 

sheep and 

lambs 

Percent sheep 

and lambs 

(based on total 

inventory) 

Average value 

per operation 

1 to 99 .............................................................................. 35,647 80 .7 899,589 17 .4 $2,625 

100 to 299 ........................................................................ 5,659 12 .8 680,404 13 .2 12,510 

300 to 999 ........................................................................ 1,991 4 .5 762,007 14 .7 39,800 

1,000 to 4,999 .................................................................. 743 1 .7 1,181,441 22 .8 165,370 

5,000 or more .................................................................. 149 0 .3 1,653,010 31 .9 1,153,780 

Total .......................................................................... 44,189 100 5,176,451 100 12,180 

Source: USDA/NASS, 2002 Census of Agriculture. 

Livestock facilities that are considered 

small entities would have to meet the 

same standards as other larger firms if 

they choose to become an approved 

facility. This would include following 

certain identification, recordkeeping, 

and handling practices with respect to 

sheep or goats. Some of these 

requirements are already provided in 

part 79 of the regulations, and thus 

would not represent a new burden. In 

addition, a certain number of these 

facilities already comply with many of 

the conditions in this rule in operating 

as approved livestock facilities for other 

classes of livestock. 

We considered the feasibility of 

exempting small entities from some or 

all of the requirements in this rule or 

establishing differing compliance or 

reporting requirements that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities. However, one of the aims of an 

effective national program to control 

and eradicate scrapie is to establish 

uniform standards that will be followed 

by all livestock facilities handling 

unidentified sheep or goats and animals 

with a certificate of veterinary 

inspection in interstate commerce. 

Programs relating to disease 

surveillance and control do not lend 

themselves to different compliance 

standards based on the size of the entity 

subject to regulation. Also, the 

requirements in part 79 pertaining to 

identification, recordkeeping, and 

handling of sheep and goats make no 

distinction as to the size of the producer 

or other livestock facility handling the 

animals. 

As discussed above, producers who 

are engaged in intrastate and interstate 

marketing may be indirectly affected by 

this rule if they have to pay higher 

consignment fees as livestock facilities 

pass their increased costs of providing 

services. Other costs to producers of this 

action could result for those animals 

requiring special handling at approved 

livestock facilities. However, because 

most of the facilities that handle sheep 

and goats are already in compliance 

with the regulations in part 79, the 

potential costs to sheep and goat 

producers considered small entities 

should not be significant. 

In sum, it is reasonable to expect that 

both small and large entities would 

benefit from this rule, which would 

strengthen scrapie control programs 

resulting in long-term avoided costs of 

coping with market losses associated 

with scrapie. Direct losses to the U.S. 

sheep industry alone are currently 

estimated to be as high as $24 million 

per year. We expect any costs to 

operators of livestock facilities or to 

producers to be more than offset by the 

added benefits to the industry at large 

in providing a more effective scrapie 

eradication program. 

The primary alternative to the rule 

would be to make no changes at all to 

the existing regulations. The regulations 

in part 79 already include certain 

requirements to be followed by 

approved livestock markets with respect 

to the identification, recordkeeping and 

handling of sheep and goats in interstate 

commerce. However, the regulations in 

part 71 do not specify the process by 

which these facilities are to be 

approved. Therefore, it is imperative 

that an approval process be added to our 

regulations. 

This rule contains various 

recordkeeping requirements, which 

were described in our proposed rule and 

which have been approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (see 

‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ below). 

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 final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has 

no retroactive effect; and (3) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact have 

been prepared for this final rule. The 

environmental assessment provides a 

basis for the conclusion that the APHIS 

approval of livestock facilities that 

handle sheep and goats in interstate 

commerce under the conditions 

specified in this rule will not have a 

significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. Based on the 

finding of no significant impact, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement need not be prepared. 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact were 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 14709 

9 Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2007-0069. The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact will appear in the 

resulting list of documents. 

site.9 Copies of the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact are also available for public 

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except holidays. Persons 

wishing to inspect copies are requested 

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to 

facilitate entry into the reading room. In 

addition, copies may be obtained by 

writing to the individual listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0258. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this final rule, please contact Mrs. 

Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information 

Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851– 

2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 71 

Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry 

and poultry products, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

■ 2. Section 71.1 is amended by revising 

the definitions of Accredited 

veterinarian, Area veterinarian in 

charge, Interstate commerce, Livestock, 

State, State animal health official, and 

State representative and by adding, in 

alphabetical order, new definitions for 

Breeding sheep and goats, Consistent 

States and Inconsistent States to read as 

follows: 

§ 71.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Accredited veterinarian. A 

veterinarian who is approved by the 

Administrator, in accordance with part 

161 of this chapter, to perform official 

animal health work of the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service 

specified in subchapters A, B, C, and D 

of this chapter and to perform work 

required by cooperative State-Federal 

disease control and eradication 

programs. 

* * * * * 

Area veterinarian in charge. The 

veterinary official of APHIS who is 

assigned by the Administrator to 

supervise and perform the official 

animal health work of the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service in the 

State concerned. 

* * * * * 

Breeding sheep and goats. Any 

sexually intact sheep or goat that is not 

moving either directly to slaughter or 

through one or more restricted sales 

and/or terminal feedlots and then 

directly to slaughter. 

* * * * * 

Consistent States. Those States listed 

as consistent States in § 79.1 of this 

subchapter because they meet certain 

standards, as provided in § 79.6 of this 

subchapter, for conducting an active 

State scrapie program involving the 

identification of scrapie in sheep and 

goats for the purpose of controlling the 

spread of scrapie. 

* * * * * 

Inconsistent States. Those States not 

included in the list of consistent States 

appearing in § 79.1 of this subchapter. 

* * * * * 

Interstate commerce. Trade, traffic, 

transportation, or other commerce 

between a place in a State and any place 

outside of that State, or between points 

within a State but through any place 

outside of that State. 

* * * * * 

Livestock. Horses, cattle, bison, 

cervids, camelids, sheep, goats, swine, 

and other farm-raised animals. 

* * * * * 

State. Any of the 50 States, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the District of Columbia, and 

any territories and possessions of the 

United States. 

State animal health official. The State 

official responsible for livestock and 

poultry disease control and eradication 

programs. 

State representative. An individual 

employed in animal health work by a 

State or a political subdivision thereof 

and authorized by such State or political 

subdivision to perform the function 

involved. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 71.3 is amended by 

reserving paragraph (c)(5) and by adding 

a new paragraph (c)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 71.3 Interstate movement of diseased 

animals and poultry generally prohibited. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) Sheep or goats designated, with 

regard to scrapie, as exposed animals, 

high-risk animals, suspect animals, or 

scrapie-positive animals, as those terms 

are defined in part 79 of this subchapter, 

may be moved interstate only in 

accordance with part 79 of this 

subchapter. 

* * * * * 

§ 71.6 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 71.6, paragraph (a), the first 

sentence is amended by adding the 

word ‘‘goats,’’ immediately after the 

word ‘‘sheep,’’. 

§ 71.19 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 71.19, paragraph (d), the 

introductory text is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘Area Veterinarian 

in Charge’’ both times it appears and 

adding the words ‘‘area veterinarian in 

charge’’ in their place. 

■ 6. Section § 71.20 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(3), by adding the 

number ‘‘79,’’ immediately after the 

number ‘‘78,’’. 

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

words ‘‘high-risk and scrapie-positive’’ 

immediately after the word ‘‘exposed,’’. 

■ c. By revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), 

(a)(7), and (a)(11) to read as set forth 

below. 

■ d. In paragraph (a)(8), by adding the 

number ‘‘79,’’ immediately after the 

number ‘‘78,’’. 

■ e. In paragraph (a)(12), by removing 

the words ‘‘or suspect, or exposed’’ and 

adding in their place the words 

‘‘suspect, exposed, high-risk, or scrapiepositive’’. 

■ f. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(17) 

through (a)(20) as paragraphs (a)(18) 

through (a)(21), respectively, and adding 

a new paragraph (a)(17) before the 

undesignated center heading 

‘‘Approvals’’ to read as set forth below. 

■ g. By revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(18) to read as set forth 

below. 

14710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

■ h. By adding a parenthetical 

containing an OMB citation at the end 

of the section to read as set forth below. 

§ 71.20 Approval of livestock facilities. 

* * * 

(5) Any reactor, suspect, exposed, 

high-risk, or scrapie positive livestock 

shall be held in quarantined pens apart 

from all other livestock at the facility. 

This requirement shall not apply to 

scrapie-exposed sheep that are not also 

designated high-risk animals or to sheep 

or goats designated under 9 CFR part 79 

as scrapie-exposed or high-risk animals 

that either are not pregnant based on the 

animal being male, an owner 

certification that any female animals 

have not been exposed to a male in the 

preceding 6 months, or a certificate 

issued by an accredited veterinarian 

stating the animals are open; or that the 

animals are under 12 months of age and 

are not visibly pregnant and are 

maintained in the same pen only with 

other animals that will be moved 

directly to slaughter or to a terminal 

feedlot in accordance with 9 CFR parts 

71 and 79. 

(6) No reactor, suspect, exposed, highrisk, or scrapie-positive livestock, nor 

any livestock that show signs of being 

infected with any infectious, contagious, 

or communicable disease, may be sold 

at or moved from the facility, except in 

accordance with 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, 

79, and 85. 

Records 

(7) Documents such as weight tickets, 

sales slips, and records of origin, 

identification, and destination that 

relate to livestock that are in, or that 

have been in, the facility shall be 

maintained by the facility for a period 

of 2 years, or for a period of 5 years in 

the case of sheep or goats. APHIS 

representatives and State 

representatives shall be permitted to 

review and copy those documents 

during normal business hours. 

* * * * * 

(11) Quarantined pens shall be clearly 

labeled with paint or placarded with the 

word ‘‘Quarantined’’ or the name of the 

disease of concern, and shall be cleaned 

and disinfected in accordance with 9 

CFR part 71 as well as 9 CFR 54.7(e)(2) 

if the disease of concern is scrapie and 

the quarantined animal gave birth or 

aborted at the facility, before being used 

to pen livestock that are not reactor, 

suspect, exposed, high-risk, or scrapiepositive animals. 

* * * * * 

(17) Sheep and goats: 

—This facility will handle breeding 

sheep or goats: [Initials of operator, 

date] 

—This facility will handle slaughter 

sheep or goats: [Initials of operator, 

date] 

—This facility will handle scrapieexposed goats or high-risk sheep or 

goats: [Initials of operator, date] 

—This facility will not handle goats 

known to be scrapie-exposed or sheep 

or goats known to be high-risk 

animals, nor permit such animals to 

enter the facility: [Initials of operator, 

date] 

(i) All sheep and goats must be 

received, handled, and released by the 

facility only in accordance with 9 CFR 

parts 71 and 79. 

(ii) All sheep and goats at the facility 

must be officially identified and 

relevant records related to those 

identified animals must be maintained 

by the facility operator, as required 

under 9 CFR part 79. 

(iii) The identity of sheep and goats 

from consistent States and inconsistent 

States must be maintained by the 

facility operator. 

(iv) Sexually intact animals that do 

not meet the requirements of part 79 to 

be sold as breeding animals must be 

maintained in separated enclosures at 

all times from animals that may be 

offered for sale as breeding animals 

unless all animals maintained in an 

enclosure arrived at the facility as part 

of the same consignment and are 

separated prior to sale. 

(v) Any sheep or goats that are 

designated, with regard to scrapie, as 

high-risk, suspect or scrapie-positive 

animals, and goats designated with 

regard to scrapie as exposed animals, 

excluding slaughter sheep or goats that 

are designated as exposed or high-risk 

animals and are not pregnant, must be 

held in quarantined pens while at the 

facility. 

Approvals 

(18) Request for approval: 

I hereby request approval for this 

facility to operate as an approved 

livestock facility for the classes of 

livestock indicated in paragraphs (14) 

through (17) of this agreement. I 

acknowledge that I have received a copy 

of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, 79, and 85, 

and acknowledge that I have been 

informed and understand that failure to 

abide by the provisions of this 

agreement and the applicable provisions 

of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, 79, and 85 

constitutes a basis for the withdrawal of 

this approval. [Printed name and 

signature of operator, date of signature] 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 0579– 

0258) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

March 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–7233 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 145, 146, and 147 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0042] 

RIN 0579–AC78 

National Poultry Improvement Plan and 

Auxiliary Provisions 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the National 

Poultry Improvement Plan (the Plan) 

and its auxiliary provisions by 

providing new or modified sampling 

and testing procedures for Plan 

participants and participating flocks. 

The changes were voted on and 

approved by the voting delegates at the 

Plan’s 2006 National Plan Conference. 

These changes will keep the provisions 

of the Plan current with changes in the 

poultry industry and provide for the use 

of new sampling and testing procedures. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator, 

Poultry Improvement Staff, National 

Poultry Improvement Plan, Veterinary 

Services, APHIS, USDA, 1498 Klondike 

Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094– 

5104; (770) 922–3496. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Poultry Improvement 

Plan (NPIP, also referred to below as 

‘‘the Plan’’) is a cooperative FederalState-industry mechanism for 

controlling certain poultry diseases. The 

Plan consists of a variety of programs 

intended to prevent and control poultry 

diseases. Participation in all Plan 

programs is voluntary, but breeding 

flocks, hatcheries, and dealers must first 

qualify as ‘‘U.S. Pullorum-Typhoid 

Clean’’ as a condition for participating 

in the other Plan programs. 

The Plan identifies States, flocks, 

hatcheries, dealers, and slaughter plants 

that meet certain disease control 

standards specified in the Plan’s various 

programs. As a result, customers can 

buy poultry that has tested clean of