Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107045 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 148 and 149 

[Docket No. APHIS–2022–0061] 

RIN 0579–AE75 

US Swine Health Improvement Plan 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing the creation 

of regulations governing the US Swine 

Health Improvement Plan (US SHIP). 

US SHIP would be a voluntary livestock 

improvement program aimed at 

improving biosecurity, traceability, and 

disease surveillance for swine health. 

The swine industry has requested the 

establishment of US SHIP, which builds 

on an existing pilot program initiated by 

industry. We propose to codify US SHIP 

as a Federal regulatory program and 

allow participating sites to obtain 

certifications of disease-monitored 

status for African swine fever and 

classical swine fever. Establishment of 

US SHIP would allow participating sites 

to market their products with the 

relevant certification status, which 

could limit disruptions to international 

and interstate commerce during 

outbreaks. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before January 30, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS– 

2022–0061 in the Search field. Select 

the Documents tab, then select the 

Comment button in the list of 

documents. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2022–0061, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

2C–10.16, 4700 River Road, Unit 25, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket may be viewed at regulations.gov 

or in our reading room, which is located 

in room 1620 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: Dr. 

Lydia Carpenter, Veterinary Medical 

Officer, Aquaculture, Swine, Equine, 

and Poultry Health Center, VS, 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, 920 

Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, 

NC 27606; phone: (919) 855–7276; 

email; lydia.carpenter@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under Section 8310(d) of the Animal 

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

8301 et seq.), the Secretary of 

Agriculture may cooperate with ‘‘State 

authorities, Indian tribe authorities, or 

other persons in the administration of 

regulations for the improvement of 

livestock and livestock products.’’ 

Under Section 8315 of the AHPA, the 

Secretary of Agriculture has the 

authority to issue orders and promulgate 

regulations relative to the provisions of 

the Act. The Secretary has delegated 

authority to issue such orders and 

regulations to the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

Pursuant to this authority, APHIS may 

issue regulations to establish and 

administer livestock improvement 

plans. 

Currently, APHIS administers one 

livestock improvement program, the 

National Poultry Improvement Program 

(NPIP), which is described in 9 CFR 

parts 145, 146 and 147. NPIP is a 

collaborative effort involving industry, 

State, and Federal partners providing 

standards for certifying the health status 

of more than 99 percent of commercial 

poultry and egg operations across the 

United States. NPIP establishes general 

provisions for administering its program 

through Official State Agencies (OSAs); 

flock, hatchery, and dealer participation 

and management, including testing and 

inspection; and more specific provisions 

for managing different kinds of breeding 

and commercial flocks. The NPIP 

regulations also set forth auxiliary 

provisions for NPIP oversight through a 

General Conference Committee 

(henceforth ‘‘GCC’’ or ‘‘the Committee’’), 

with direction on establishing 

membership, selecting and confirming 

delegates, and the Committee’s role in 

preparing and recommending changes 

to the NPIP regulations. Specific blood 

testing, bacteriological and molecular 

examination, and flock sanitation 

processes are set forth in a series of 

Program Standards that the APHIS 

Veterinary Services (VS) Avian Health 

program, with the GCC’s help, 

periodically updates and publishes for 

public notice and comment. 

No such program currently exists in 

the regulations for the swine industry. 

However, the industry has operated the 

US Swine Health Improvement Plan (US 

SHIP, the Plan), as a pilot program since 

2020. The pilot program aims to certify 

participating sites as African swine 

fever (ASF)- and classical swine fever 

(CSF)-Monitored. 

ASF and CSF are highly contagious 

diseases of swine that can spread 

rapidly with high rates of morbidity and 

mortality. Neither disease is known to 

occur in the United States; introduction 

of either disease would result in 

significant disruptions to domestic and 

international trade. 

In order to participate in the pilot 

program, participating sites must meet 

biosecurity, traceability, and testing 

requirements and maintain 

documentation demonstrating such 

adherence. Participating sites with ASF 

and CSF certifications may market their 

products as such. A goal of the program 

is to mitigate possible disruptions to 

trade, both domestically and 

internationally, that could be caused by 

the introduction of these diseases into 

the United States. 

The pilot program is governed by a 

House of Delegates, which has met 

annually and is composed of 

representatives from academia and 

industry, and State and Federal animal 

health officials. These representatives 

are called ‘‘delegates’’ and are selected 

by the OSAs of the States they 

represent. At the House of Delegates 

meeting, the delegates consider and vote 

to recommend changes to the US SHIP 

program. Under the terms of this 

proposed rule, the House of Delegates 

would be led by a General Conference 

Committee (‘‘GCC’’), which would 

function as a Federal advisory 

committee to provide recommendations 

to APHIS relative to the administration 

of US SHIP. We discuss this at greater 

length later in this document. 

The proposed US SHIP regulations 

would incorporate the provisions of the 

pilot program and this governance 

structure with some modifications to 

meet Federal requirements, as discussed 

below. APHIS, the States, and the swine 

industry would jointly administer the 

codified program. Like the pilot 

program, participants would need to 

meet biosecurity, traceability, and 

testing requirements. Also like the pilot 

program, US SHIP would, at least 

initially, target ASF and CSF. 

APHIS plans to model US SHIP after 

NPIP, which is also a Federal-Stateindustry program. US SHIP would 

establish a similar platform for 

safeguarding, improving, and 

representing the health status of swine 

across participating farm sites, supply 

chains, States, and regions. As with the 

NPIP, OSAs would administer the 

program in their States by enrolling 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107046 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1World Organization for Animal Health (June 

2009). African Swine Fever. Technical Disease 

Cards. Retrieved September 6, 2024, from https:// 

www.woah.org/app/uploads/2021/03/oie-africanswine-fever-technical-disease-card.pdf. 

2APHIS (October 2023). African Swine Fever 

Response Plan: The Red Book. Retrieved September 

6, 2024 from, https://aphis.stg.platform.usda.gov/ 

sites/default/files/asf-responseplan.pdf. 

participants and conferring certification 

based on requirements such as disease 

testing and site biosecurity practices 

specific to the participating site type. 

Site types are described at greater length 

below and in the Program Standards 

that accompany this proposed rule. Site 

types include boar stud facilities, 

breeding herds, growing pig facilities, 

farrow to feeder/finisher facilities, small 

holding facilities, non-commercial 

facilities, live animal marketing 

operations, and slaughtering facilities. 

NPIP covers analogous site types in the 

poultry industry, such as hatcheries, 

dealers, and slaughtering facilities. 

Unlike NPIP, entities eligible to serve as 

OSAs would be limited to veterinary 

authorities responsible for enforcing a 

State’s swine health regulations (i.e., a 

State Animal Health Official) or a 

cooperative effort between a State 

Animal Health Official and other 

entities. In NPIP, the OSA may be any 

State Authority recognized by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA, the 

Department), such as the State 

Departments of Agriculture, State 

Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories, and 

State Poultry Associations. This 

modification for US SHIP reflects the 

critical need for a regulatory role in a 

program that monitors for diseases that 

are not currently known to exist in the 

United States. US SHIP would also 

include traceability provisions, which 

are not part of the NPIP, but which are 

necessary for ensuring the movement of 

healthy swine. Finally, APHIS would 

establish as part of US SHIP a GCC 

composed of swine producers and other 

industry and State animal health 

participants that would advise APHIS 

on matters of swine health and disease 

management. The US SHIP GCC would 

operate like the NPIP GCC, but with 

different Technical Committees 

organized around the issues impacting 

swine health. The group would provide 

technical and swine-specific support 

and advice to program participants as 

well as APHIS, acting as a liaison 

between the Agency and the swine 

industry. 

To codify US SHIP, we are proposing 

to add two new parts to the 9 CFR, parts 

148 and 149. Part 148 would contain 

two subparts, one for general provisions 

of US SHIP (subpart A), and another for 

participating slaughtering facilities in 

US SHIP (subpart B). Part 149 would 

discuss the procedures for changing the 

regulations and Program Standards for 

US SHIP, and also contain provisions 

regarding US SHIP conferences and 

committees. Below, we discuss the 

provisions of US SHIP in the order in 

which they appear in the proposed 

regulations. We first discuss subpart A 

of part 148, then subpart B, then 

proposed part 149. 

Proposed Part 148 

Subpart A (General Provisions) 

Subpart A of US SHIP, ‘‘General 

Provisions,’’ would consist of proposed 

§§ 148.1 through 148.11 and provide the 

general structure for participation in US 

SHIP. 

Definitions (§ 148.1) 

Section 148.1 would contain 

definitions of the following terms used 

within proposed part 148: 

Administrator, African swine fever, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS), authorized agent, 

authorized laboratory, boar, boar stud, 

classical swine fever, Department, 

farrow to feeder/finisher facility, feral 

swine, gilt, growing pig facility, live 

animal marketing operation, National 

Animal Health Laboratory Network 

(NAHLN), non-commercial facility, 

Official State Agency, person, plan, 

pork product, Senior Coordinator, small 

holding facility, sow, State, swine, US 

SHIP Program Standards, and US SHIP 

Technical Committee. 

We are proposing to define 

Administrator as ‘‘the Administrator, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, or any person authorized to act 

for the Administrator.’’ This definition 

is drawn from NPIP and is generally 

consistent with the definition of the 

term within APHIS’ regulations in 9 

CFR chapter I. 

We are proposing to define African 

swine fever as ‘‘a highly contagious viral 

hemorrhagic disease caused by a large, 

enveloped, double-stranded DNA virus 

of the family Asfarviridae and genus 

Asfivirus that affects animals in the 

family Suidae, including domestic pigs, 

feral swine, and Eurasian wild boar.’’ 

This definition is derived from the 

World Organization for Animal Health 

(WOAH) technical disease card,1 APHIS 

Veterinary Services Center for 

Epidemiology and Animal Health 

(CEAH) case definition,2 and the 

Merriam-Webster dictionary. The 

APHIS Veterinary Services CEAH case 

definition was, in turn, developed by a 

group of APHIS interdisciplinary 

subject matter experts. 

We are proposing to define Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) as ‘‘the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.’’ This 

definition is drawn from NPIP and is 

generally consistent with the definition 

of this term throughout APHIS’ 

regulations in 9 CFR chapter I. 

We are proposing to define authorized 

agent to mean any person designated 

under § 148.7 of the regulations to 

collect official samples for submission 

to an authorized laboratory in 

accordance with § 148.10 of the 

regulations. This definition is drawn 

from NPIP. 

We are proposing to define authorized 

laboratory to mean a laboratory that 

meets the requirements of § 148.11 and 

is thus qualified to perform assays in 

accordance with the US SHIP 

regulations. This definition is likewise 

modeled on the definition of authorized 

laboratory within NPIP. 

We are proposing to define boar as ‘‘a 

sexually intact male swine.’’ This 

definition, along with the definitions of 

the terms gilt, sow, swine, and pork 

product, are derived from USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS’) 

regulations in 7 CFR 59.200. That 

section of AMS’ regulations contains 

definitions of types of swine and pork 

products that must be reported under 

AMS’ administration of the Agricultural 

Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1635– 

1636i). Because of these mandatory 

requirements, we consider swine 

producers to be familiar with AMS’ 

definitions, and also find them 

appropriate for the purposes of our 

proposed US SHIP regulations, which 

would establish a voluntary program to 

promote marketing of swine and pork 

products. 

We are proposing to define boar stud 

as ‘‘a swine production site with mature 

boars that distributes semen to other 

swine production sites.’’ This definition 

is taken from the US SHIP pilot program 

enrollment documents, which were 

created by the industry, academia, and 

regulatory experts that worked to 

develop the pilot program. An 

interdisciplinary group of APHIS 

Veterinary Services subject matter 

experts contributed to the definitions 

developed for the pilot program. 

We would define classical swine fever 

as ‘‘a highly contagious viral septicemia, 

caused by a small, enveloped RNA virus 

of the family Flaviviridae and genus 

Pestivirus, that affects animals in the 

family Suidae, including domestic pigs, 

feral swine, and Eurasian wild boar.’’ 

This definition is derived from the 

WOAH technical disease card, the 

APHIS Veterinary Services CEAH case 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107047 

definition, and the Merriam-Webster 

dictionary. The APHIS Veterinary 

Services CEAH case definition was, in 

turn, developed by a group of 

interdisciplinary subject matter experts. 

We are proposing to define 

Department to mean the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

We are proposing to define farrow to 

feeder/finisher facility as ‘‘a swine 

production site with breeding females 

(gilts and/or sows) and grow feeder 

swine for purposes other than breeding 

stock replacement for this particular 

farm site, and that houses ≥1,000 

breeder or feeder swine.’’ This 

definition is taken from the US SHIP 

pilot program enrollment documents, 

which were created by the industry, 

academia, and regulatory experts that 

worked to develop the pilot program. 

An interdisciplinary group of APHIS 

Veterinary Services subject matter 

experts contributed to the definitions 

developed for the pilot program. 

We are proposing to define feral swine 

as ‘‘free-roaming swine.’’ This definition 

is taken from part of the definition of 

feral swine in 9 CFR 78.1. That section 

of part 78 contains definitions used 

within our regulations governing 

APHIS’ domestic brucellosis program. 

The definition of feral swine in the US 

SHIP regulations, however, would omit 

additional provisions within that 

definition that pertain to swine 

brucellosis, as that disease is not 

currently covered by US SHIP. 

We are proposing to define gilt as ‘‘a 

young female swine that has not 

produced a litter.’’ The definition is 

derived from AMS’ regulations in 7 CFR 

59.200. 

We are proposing to define growing 

pig facility as ‘‘a swine production site 

with ≥1,000 feeder swine (nursery, 

grower, or finisher).’’ This definition is 

taken from the US SHIP pilot program 

enrollment documents, which were 

created by the industry, academia, and 

regulatory experts that worked to 

develop the pilot program. An 

interdisciplinary group of APHIS 

Veterinary Services subject matter 

experts contributed to the definitions 

developed for the pilot program. 

We are proposing to define Live 

animal market operation as ‘‘A dealer 

with a livestock yard/buying facility 

that markets swine for resale of such 

swine to slaughter facilities.’’ 

We are proposing to define the 

National Animal Health Laboratory 

Network (NAHLN) as ‘‘a nationally 

coordinated network and partnership of 

primarily Federal, State, and universityassociated animal health laboratories 

that provide animal health diagnostic 

testing, methods research and 

development, and expertise for 

education and extension to detect 

biological threats to the nation’s animal 

agriculture, thus protecting animal 

health, public health, and the nation’s 

food supply.’’ This definition is taken 

from 9 CFR 71.1, which contains 

definitions of, among other things, 

APHIS’ regulations governing the 

approval of laboratories to conduct 

official testing. Approved laboratories 

must use APHIS-approved assay 

methods. As discussed further below, 

the laboratories that conduct official 

testing within US SHIP would have to 

belong to the NAHLN. 

We are proposing to define noncommercial facility as ‘‘a swine 

production site with <100 breeding 

females (gilts, boars, and/or sows) or 

feeder swine. Backyard, exhibition, or 

niche swine production sites are 

considered non-commercial facilities if 

they maintain fewer than 100 breeding 

swine or feeder swine.’’ This definition 

is taken from the US SHIP pilot program 

enrollment documents, which were 

created by the industry, academia, and 

regulatory experts that worked to 

develop the pilot program. An 

interdisciplinary group of APHIS 

Veterinary Services subject matter 

experts contributed to the definitions 

developed for the pilot program. 

We are proposing to define Official 

State Agency as ‘‘the State veterinary 

authority recognized by the Department 

to cooperate in the administration of the 

Plan.’’ This definition is drawn from 

NPIP, and OSAs would play a 

functionally equivalent role within US 

SHIP to that which they play within 

NPIP. We discuss this at greater length 

later in this proposed rule. 

We are proposing to define person as 

‘‘a natural person, firm, or corporation.’’ 

This definition is drawn from NPIP, 

and, as within NPIP, we would use 

person in both an individual and a 

corporate sense within US SHIP. 

We are proposing to define Plan to 

mean the provisions of the US SHIP 

contained in part 148. This definition is 

derived from NPIP, where the term is 

used equivalently. 

We are proposing to define pork 

product as ‘‘a product or byproduct 

produced or processed in whole or in 

part from swine.’’ This definition is 

derived from AMS’ regulations in 7 CFR 

59.200. 

We are proposing to define Senior 

Coordinator to mean an employee of 

APHIS whose duties may include, but 

will not necessarily be limited to: 

• Serving as Executive Secretary of 

the GCC; 

• Serving as chairperson of the House 

of Delegates conference; 

• Coordinating the State 

administration of US SHIP through 

periodic reviews of the administrative 

procedures of OSAs, according to the 

applicable provisions of the Plan and 

the Memorandum of Understanding; 

and 

• Coordinating future rulemakings to 

incorporate the proposed changes of the 

provisions adopted at the House of 

Delegates meeting into the regulations 

in parts 148 and 149. 

This definition is drawn from NPIP, 

in which the Senior Coordinator fulfills 

a similar role. 

We are proposing to define small 

holding facility as ‘‘a swine production 

site with ≥100 and <1,000 breeding 

swine (gilts, boars, and/or sows) or 

feeder swine.’’ This definition is taken 

from the US SHIP pilot program 

enrollment documents, which were 

created by the industry, academia, and 

regulatory experts that worked to 

develop the pilot program. An 

interdisciplinary group of APHIS 

Veterinary Services subject matter 

experts reviewed the definitions 

developed for the pilot program. 

We are proposing to define sow as ‘‘an 

adult female swine that has produced 1 

or more litters.’’ The definition is 

derived from AMS’ regulations in 7 CFR 

59.200. 

We are proposing to define State as 

‘‘any State, the District of Columbia, or 

Puerto Rico.’’ This definition is drawn 

from NPIP. We acknowledge that the 

definition of State within the AHPA 

itself is more expansive, and also 

includes all other territories or 

possessions of the United States. 

However, as with NPIP, the sole 

participating territory or possession in 

US SHIP is Puerto Rico, and no other 

territories or possessions are expected to 

participate. 

We are proposing to define swine as 

‘‘a porcine animal raised to be a feeder 

pig, raised for seedstock, raised for 

exhibition, or raised for slaughter.’’ This 

definition is derived from AMS’ 

regulations in 7 CFR 59.200. 

We are proposing to define US SHIP 

Program Standards as ‘‘a document that 

contains biosecurity, traceability, and 

sampling and testing procedures 

approved by the Administrator for use 

under parts 148 and 149. This document 

may be obtained from the US SHIP 

website at (address to be added in final 

rule) or by writing to APHIS at US 

Swine Health Improvement Plan (US 

SHIP), APHIS, USDA, 920 Main Campus 

Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606.’’ 

This definition is modeled after NPIP 

with changes to reflect the contact 

information for US SHIP. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107048 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3US SHIP Pilot Program (2024). Enrollment 

Forms. U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan. 

Retrieved September 6, 2024, from https://usswine

healthimprovementplan.com/program-documents/ 

enrollment-documents/. 

4US SHIP Pilot Program (2024). Enrollment 

Forms. U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan. 

Retrieved September 6, 2024, from https://usswine

healthimprovementplan.com/program-documents/ 

enrollment-documents/. 

We are proposing to define US SHIP 

Technical Committee as ‘‘a committee 

made up of technical experts on swine 

health, including topics such as 

biosecurity, traceability, and sampling 

and testing. The committee consists of 

representatives from the swine and pork 

products industries, universities, and 

State and Federal governments that are 

appointed by the Senior Coordinator 

and reviewed by the General Conference 

Committee. The committee will 

consider proposed changes to the 

Provisions and Program Standards of 

the Plan and provide recommendations 

to the House of Delegates as to whether 

they are scientifically or technically 

sound.’’ This definition is derived from 

NPIP with modifications to fit the 

specific characteristics of US SHIP. 

Administration (§ 148.2) 

Proposed § 148.2 would outline the 

administration of US SHIP, including 

the respective roles of APHIS, the OSAs, 

and authorized laboratories. These 

provisions are modeled on similar 

provisions in NPIP, with some changes 

to reflect the specific needs of US SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.2(a) would provide 

that the Department will cooperate 

through a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with OSAs in the 

administration of the Plan. It also would 

require OSAs to designate a contact 

representative to serve as a liaison 

between APHIS and the OSAs. These 

provisions are modeled on similar 

provisions within NPIP. As in NPIP, 

APHIS would coordinate extensively 

with OSAs in the administration of the 

program, and the MOU and designated 

liaison would facilitate that interaction. 

Proposed § 148.2(b) would provide 

that the administrative procedures, 

decisions, and records of the OSA 

relevant to the implementation of US 

SHIP are subject to review by APHIS. 

This provision is modeled on similar 

provisions within NPIP. 

State administrative procedures, 

decisions, and records would only be 

subject to review by APHIS as they 

pertain to the implementation of US 

SHIP. Proposed paragraph (b) of § 148.2 

would provide further that the OSA 

shall carry out the administration of the 

Plan within the State according to the 

applicable provisions of the Plan and 

the MOU. This provision is directly 

modeled on NPIP, in which the NPIP 

regulations and the MOU serve as the 

framework to guide the OSA’s actions. 

Proposed § 148.2(c) would provide 

that the OSA of any State may adopt 

regulations applicable to the 

administration of the Plan in such State 

further defining the provisions of the 

Plan or establishing higher standards 

compatible with the Plan. This 

provision is modeled after NPIP and 

allows States to further delineate or 

augment administration of the Plan 

within the general framework provided 

by the regulations themselves and the 

MOU. 

Proposed § 148.2(d) would provide 

that laboratories authorized in 

accordance with proposed § 148.11 will 

conduct diagnostic testing when 

determining the status of a participating 

herd with respect to official Plan 

classifications. Section 148.11 would 

contain requirements for laboratories to 

be authorized to conduct official testing 

within US SHIP. This provision is 

modeled on similar provisions in 

§ 145.2 of the NPIP regulations; 

however, as discussed at greater length 

below, while laboratories do not have to 

belong to the NAHLN to conduct testing 

within the NPIP, they would within US 

SHIP. 

Participation (§ 148.3) 

Proposed § 148.3 would outline rules 

for participation in US SHIP. These 

rules are modeled after similar 

provisions in NPIP, with some changes 

to reflect the specific needs of US SHIP. 

These provisions also draw on the US 

SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed paragraph § 148.3(a) would 

provide that US SHIP is a cooperative 

Federal-State-Industry program aimed at 

preventing and monitoring specific 

diseases in swine. This provision is 

modeled after NPIP. The paragraph also 

outlines the kinds of entities that can 

participate in US SHIP, which would 

include boar stud facilities, breeding 

herds, growing pig facilities, farrow to 

feeder/finisher facilities, small holding 

facilities, non-commercial facilities, live 

animal marketing operations, and 

slaughtering facilities that meet Plan 

standards in biosecurity, traceability, 

and surveillance for designated diseases 

and are in States with an APHISrecognized OSA. This list of entities that 

may participate in US SHIP is drawn 

from the US SHIP pilot program’s 

Enrollment Form.3 This list is also 

modeled after similar provisions in 

NPIP, but with changes to reflect the 

terminology used in, and structure of, 

the U.S. swine industry. 

Proposed § 148.3(a) also would 

provide that certifications would require 

participants to meet Plan standards in 

biosecurity, traceability, and 

surveillance for designated diseases. 

These standards are drawn from the US 

SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 148.3(b) would outline 

prerequisites for participation in the 

plan. Potential participants would have 

to demonstrate to their OSA that their 

facilities, personnel, and practices are 

adequate for carrying out the applicable 

requirements of the Plan. Participants 

would also have to sign an agreement 

with the OSA to comply with the Plan’s 

provisions and any regulations of the 

OSA under § 148.2. This provision is 

modeled on NPIP. 

Proposed § 148.3(c) would define the 

timeframe of participation in US SHIP. 

Participants would have to comply with 

the requirements of the program until 

released by the OSA. This provision is 

modeled on NPIP. 

Proposed § 148.3(d) would provide 

that participants may enroll with any 

swine operations within each 

participating State or slaughter facilities 

within each participating State, and it 

would list the information that 

participants would have to report to 

their OSA upon enrolling. The US SHIP 

pilot program’s Enrollment Form 

requires participants to submit the same 

information listed here, and the 

information on the Enrollment Form 

was modeled on the information 

requirements to participate in NPIP.4

Proposed § 148.3(d)(1) would require 

participants to submit the name, 

address, and contact information for the 

US SHIP participant, which will be the 

swine owner or owner of the 

slaughtering facility. 

Proposed § 148.3(d)(2) would require 

participants to submit the address 

(including latitude and longitude, if a 

911 address is not available for the site) 

of animal location, and name and 

contact information for the premises 

(site) owner. 

Proposed § 148.3(d)(3) would require 

participants to submit the premises 

identification number (PIN) for the site 

and common name of site. This 

provision is modeled on NPIP, which 

requires participants to use a number 

assigned by APHIS. NPIP did not 

require the use of a PIN, as such a 

system had not yet been established 

when the NPIP regulations were 

initially drafted. The requirement that 

participants use their existing PIN is, 

therefore, unique to US SHIP, and is 

drawn from the US SHIP pilot program. 

For purposes of US SHIP, we would 

recognize existing PINs. All 

participating sites will be assigned a PIN 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107049 

when they join, should they not already 

have one, so this requirement will not 

impose additional burdens on 

participants. PINs are widely used in 

the swine industry and, based on the 

pilot program, we anticipate that many 

sites will already have PINs before they 

begin participating in US SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.3(d)(4) would require 

participants to submit premises type, 

including boar stud facilities, breeding 

herds, growing pig facilities, farrow to 

feeder/finisher facilities, small holding 

facilities, non-commercial facilities, live 

animal marketing operations, and 

slaughtering facilities. These premise 

types are taken directly from the US 

SHIP pilot program’s Enrollment Form. 

Proposed § 148.3(d)(5) would require 

participants to submit expected site 

capacity unless the site is a slaughtering 

facility. This provision is again drawn 

from the US SHIP Enrollment Form. We 

discuss later in this document the 

parallel information that would be 

required for participating slaughtering 

facilities. 

Proposed § 148.3(d)(6) would require 

participants to submit the name and 

contact information of the individual 

who is attesting to their understanding 

and intent to comply with the 

regulations and relevant US SHIP 

Program Standards. This requirement is 

drawn from the pilot program’s US SHIP 

Enrollment Form. 

Finally, proposed § 148.3(d)(7) would 

require the aforementioned individual’s 

acknowledgement that they understand 

and intend to comply with the 

regulations and relevant US SHIP 

Program Standards and the date of their 

acknowledgement. 

Proposed § 148.3(e) provides that 

participants may qualify solely for ASF 

and CSF Monitored certification. In 

other words, the OSA cannot compel 

participation in any other classifications 

for US SHIP outlined in § 148.10. This 

provision is modeled on similar 

provisions within NPIP. 

We acknowledge that, at least 

initially, there will only be one program 

certification within US SHIP. However, 

as additional certifications are added 

over time, participants may exercise the 

option to participate in those additional 

certifications. All US SHIP participants 

would have to participate in the ASF/ 

CSF Monitored certification in order to 

participate in the additional 

certifications. 

Proposed § 148.3(f) would allow 

participants to use the official US SHIP 

emblem. It would also provide a link to 

a website that will display the official 

US SHIP emblem that may be used by 

participants. Additionally, it would 

describe the procedure for revising the 

emblem through publication of notices 

in the Federal Register. The use of 

participation emblems within US SHIP 

is modeled on similar provisions within 

NPIP. However, NPIP reproduces the 

emblems in the regulatory text of the 

NPIP regulations themselves, rather 

than web-lists the emblems. 

Using a link to a website instead of 

reproducing the emblem in the 

regulations would allow us to revise the 

emblem through a notice-based process, 

rather than through rulemaking. In the 

notice-based process, if APHIS proposes 

to revise the Plan emblem, we would 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

making available the revised emblem, as 

well as the basis for the revisions, and 

requesting public comment. If no 

comments are received on the notice, or 

if the comments received do not call 

into question the basis for the revisions, 

we would publish a subsequent notice 

in the Federal Register responding to 

the comments received and announcing 

the revised emblem. If comments 

identify concerns regarding the basis for 

the proposed revisions, however, APHIS 

would not take any action to revise the 

emblem until first addressing those 

concerns as appropriate. 

General Provisions for All Participants 

(§ 148.4) 

Proposed § 148.4 outlines provisions 

for all participants. As with other 

sections of the proposed regulations, 

these provisions are modeled after 

similar provisions in NPIP, with some 

changes to reflect the specific needs of 

US SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.4(a) would provide 

that participants must retain records 

necessary for demonstrating compliance 

with certification requirements. This 

provision is modeled on NPIP and the 

pilot program for US SHIP, and, as 

noted previously in this document, 

participant retention of records is 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

and eligibility to participate in the Plan. 

Proposed § 148.4(b) would provide 

that a participant’s animals, animal 

products, and records as needed to 

confirm certification requirements of 

swine or pork products, as well as 

advertising materials, are subject to 

inspection by the OSA or APHIS at any 

time, in accordance with § 148.8(b) and 

any additional requirements by the 

Official State Agency. This provision is 

also modeled on NPIP. 

Proposed § 148.4(c) would provide 

that advertising by Plan participants 

must comply with the Plan itself, as 

well as applicable rules of the OSA and 

the Federal Trade Commission. This 

provision is likewise modeled after 

NPIP. The paragraph also provides that 

if a participant advertises swine or pork 

products as belonging to one of the 

Plan’s official classifications, the 

participant may only include references 

to associated or franchised facilities if 

those facilities produce swine or pork 

products carrying the same official 

classification. This provision is modeled 

after NPIP and ensures that marketing 

within US SHIP clearly differentiates 

facilities that are part of US SHIP from 

those that are not. 

Proposed § 148.4(d) would provide 

that PINs will be used to verify 

participation in US SHIP, and that 

previously existing PINs will be 

recognized for this purpose. Only 

participants who do not have a PIN will 

receive a new one. The requirement that 

participants have some kind of 

identifying number is drawn from NPIP. 

However, NPIP does not require the use 

of a PIN. Instead, NPIP requires APHIS 

to assign participants approval numbers. 

The requirement that participants use 

the PIN is drawn from the US SHIP pilot 

Program Standards. The US SHIP pilot 

program uses the PIN for identification 

purposes because most potential 

participants already have a PIN, which 

is widely used in the swine industry, 

and it is more efficient to use the 

existing PIN system rather than 

assigning new identifying numbers to 

participants. 

Terminology and Classification; General 

(§ 148.5) 

Proposed § 148.5 would outline 

general terminology and classification 

within US SHIP. As with other 

provisions of US SHIP, these are 

modeled after similar provisions in 

NPIP, with some changes to reflect the 

specific needs of US SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.5(a) would provide 

that participants may only use the 

classification terms listed in proposed 

§ 148.6 and their respective emblems to 

describe swine or pork products that 

have met all the specific requirements of 

such classifications. This provision is 

modeled after NPIP and ensures that 

products marketed as having met a 

particular classification have, in fact, 

done so. 

Proposed § 148.5(b) would provide 

that swine or pork products carrying 

Plan classification shall lose their 

identity under the Plan if they are 

purchased for resale by, or consigned to, 

non-participants. This provision is 

modeled after NPIP and helps ensure 

that swine and products marketed as 

having met a particular classification 

were continually maintained under the 

classification’s requirements. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107050 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Terminology and Classification; Herds, 

Products, and States (148.6) 

Proposed § 148.6 would outline 

terminology and classifications for 

herds, products, and States within US 

SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.6(a) would provide 

that participating swine operations and 

products that have met any of the terms 

or classifications specified in the section 

may be designated with the 

corresponding emblem for the term or 

the classification, and the paragraph 

provides the web address where all such 

emblems are located. This provision is 

modeled after similar provisions in 

NPIP. 

The paragraph also would describe 

APHIS’ procedure for modifying the 

emblems for various terms or 

classifications provided in the section. 

As with the process for modifying the 

emblem for participation in US SHIP 

itself, APHIS would announce these 

changes through a notice published in 

the Federal Register with a public 

comment period. If we propose to revise 

an emblem, we would publish a notice 

in the Federal Register making available 

the revised emblem, as well as the basis 

for the revision, and requesting public 

comment. If no comments are received 

on the notice, or if the comments 

received do not call into question the 

basis for the revisions, we would 

publish a subsequent notice in the 

Federal Register responding to the 

comments received and announcing the 

revised emblem. If comments identify 

concerns regarding the basis for the 

proposed revisions, however, APHIS 

would take no action to revise the 

emblem until addressing those concerns 

as appropriate. 

Proposed § 148.6(b) would outline the 

ASF–CSF Monitored certification and 

the requirements for participants to 

receive the certification. This 

certification is modeled after the 

certifications for various poultry 

diseases covered by NPIP. The specific 

requirements of the ASF–CSF 

Monitored certification draw on the 

requirements for ASF–CSF Monitored 

certification within the US SHIP pilot 

program. 

Proposed § 148.6(b)(1) would require 

that participating swine operations only 

introduce herd additions that have 

either been exclusively sourced from 

certified ASF–CSF Monitored sites or 

sites that have participated in testing 

and clinical observation of their herds 

sufficient to demonstrate freedom from 

ASF and CSF. 

The US SHIP pilot program did not 

include any requirements for additions 

of new swine to certified sites. This 

addition is necessary, however, because 

this requirement would further help 

prevent introduction of disease to herds 

certified as ASF–CSF Monitored and 

ensure that swine on certified sites are 

held to and recognized as a different 

status than swine on non-certified sites. 

Proposed § 148.6(b)(2) would require 

the swine operation to collect samples 

and submit them for testing for any 

disease incident or death loss of 

participating swine that is suggestive of 

ASF or CSF. Testing would have to be 

conducted through the USDA Swine 

Hemorrhagic Fevers Surveillance Plan 

or a foreign animal disease investigation 

at a laboratory authorized in accordance 

with proposed § 148.11, and using tests 

approved by the Administrator to detect 

the presence of ASF and CSF. The US 

SHIP Program Standards document 

states that participants should submit 

ASF/CSF NAHLN-approved sample 

types (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

sites/default/files/nahln-sample-chartregulatory-submitters.pdf) to a NAHLN 

laboratory approved by APHIS to 

conduct test(s) for the disease(s) of 

concern. Authorized laboratories must 

follow NAHLN Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) to conduct the 

requested testing. Further information 

regarding the USDA Swine Hemorrhagic 

Fevers Surveillance Plan is provided at 

https://aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/ 

files/hemorrhagic-fevers-integratedsurveillance-plan.pdf. 

NPIP requires similar testing 

following disease incidents. However, 

the requirement to use only NAHLN 

laboratories would be unique to US 

SHIP and is taken from the US SHIP 

pilot Program Standards document. For 

reasons discussed below in our 

discussion of proposed § 148.11, only 

NAHLN laboratories have the necessary 

equipment and expertise to perform the 

required tests for ASF and CSF in 

swine. 

Proposed § 148.6(b)(3) would require 

participants to demonstrate competency 

in tracking all swine movements onto 

and off of certified sites, as described in 

the Program Standards. This 

requirement would ensure that swine 

and pork products could be traced to 

their farm of origin. 

Proposed § 148.6(b)(4) would require 

biosecurity to be maintained in a 

manner approved by APHIS and 

evaluated against these standards by the 

OSA. The paragraph also provides that 

approved biosecurity procedures will be 

listed in the US SHIP Program 

Standards. The Program Standards 

address biosecurity procedures such as 

Plan requirements, downtime and 

personal protective equipment 

requirements, and requirements in the 

event of an ASF/CSF incursion. 

Changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards would be made in accordance 

with § 149.9, as described later in this 

proposed rule. 

Finally, currently, US SHIP includes 

a classification for ASF and CSF. 

However, we are open to including 

additional programs and classifications. 

We ask for input on what additional 

programs and classifications might be 

beneficial within US SHIP. As noted 

previously, if additional programs and 

classifications are established, 

producers could elect whether or not to 

participate in them but would have to 

participate in the ASF–CSF Monitored 

program as a condition of participation 

in those programs. 

Supervision (§ 148.7) 

Proposed § 148.7 would discuss 

supervision of the Plan. 

Proposed § 148.7(a) would provide 

that the OSA may designate qualified 

persons as authorized agents to collect 

samples for diagnostic testing as 

required by § 148.10. This provision is 

modeled after a similar provision in 

§ 145.11 of the NPIP regulations. 

Proposed § 148.7(b) would provide 

that the OSA shall employ or authorize 

qualified persons as State inspectors to 

verify compliance with the Plan. This 

provision is likewise modeled after 

NPIP. 

Proposed § 148.7(c) would provide 

that the authorities to collect samples or 

verify program compliance issued under 

the provisions of this section that are 

designated by the OSA are subject to 

cancelation by the OSA or by APHIS on 

the following grounds: Incompetence, 

failure to comply with provisions of the 

Plan, or failure to comply with APHIS 

or OSA regulations. 

This provision is modeled on similar 

provisions within NPIP. However, NPIP 

only allows the OSA to cancel the 

authorities outlined in the regulations 

but does not grant such an allowance to 

APHIS. However, US SHIP covers 

diseases ASF and CSF, which are 

Foreign Animal Diseases (FADs), that is, 

diseases that are not known to exist in 

the United States. The control of such 

diseases is a Federal responsibility, 

therefore, in US SHIP, APHIS must also 

have the power to cancel the authorities 

outlined in this section. 

The paragraph also would provide 

that canceling the authorities to collect 

samples or verify program compliance 

that have been previously granted by the 

OSA may only be taken following an 

investigation by the OSA or APHIS and 

after the authorized person has been 

notified of the action and given the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107051 

opportunity to present their views. This 

provision is modeled on similar 

provisions in § 145.11 of the NPIP 

regulations; however, unlike NPIP, we 

would allow for cancellation of 

authority for violation not only of OSA 

regulations but also APHIS regulations. 

Again, the diseases covered by US SHIP 

(ASF and CSF) are FADs, and therefore 

subject to Federal authorities. For that 

reason, failure to follow APHIS or OSA 

regulations regarding such diseases 

could have significant consequences for 

domestic producers, and we thus 

consider it necessary to revoke 

authorization based on failure to adhere 

to these regulations. Additionally, and 

for a similar reason, whereas the NPIP 

regulations require investigations 

relative to cancellation to be conducted 

by the OSA, we would allow either the 

OSA or APHIS to conduct the 

investigation. 

Maintenance of Certification (§ 148.8) 

Proposed § 148.8 would discuss 

maintenance of certification within US 

SHIP. Proposed § 148.8(a) would 

provide that the OSA would verify 

whether each certified participant 

continues to meet the requirements to 

maintain certification at least one time 

annually, or more if determined 

appropriate for purposes of determining 

Plan compliance. This provision is 

modeled on a similar provision in NPIP 

for hatcheries that participate in NPIP 

and is necessary in order to ensure that 

facilities continually adhere to the 

requirements of the Plan. 

Proposed § 148.8(b) would require all 

records supporting continued program 

participation to be able to be made 

available to a State inspector for annual 

review. This provision is modeled on 

similar NPIP provisions. However, 

whereas the NPIP provisions reference 

specific forms that must be used for the 

records, the US SHIP regulations would 

not contain such requirements. This 

would allow greater latitude to APHIS 

and producers to develop mechanisms 

for recordkeeping that can be used to 

meet the requirements of the 

regulations, without having to update 

the regulations each time a new 

mechanism is identified. The paragraph 

also requires each OSA to maintain 

enrollment records for 5 years and 

inspection records for at least 3 years 

from the date of inspection. We are 

proposing that the OSA would have to 

maintain initial enrollment records for 5 

years because these records are 

foundational in documenting the OSA’s 

decision to allow the facility to 

participate in US SHIP. 

The paragraph also would allow 

OSAs to arrange on-site inspections of 

herds and premises by its 

representatives or a designee if the State 

inspector has reasonable basis to believe 

that a breach of biosecurity, specimen 

testing, or other provision may have 

occurred for Plan programs for which 

the herds have qualified. This provision 

is modeled after NPIP with some 

changes in terminology to reflect the 

kind of testing used in US SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.8(c) would allow 

APHIS to conduct on-site inspections of 

participating swine herds and premises 

if it has reasonable basis to believe that 

a breach of the Plan’s provisions may 

have occurred. NPIP only allows the 

OSA to conduct such inspections, not 

APHIS. However, because of the nature 

of the diseases covered by US SHIP, we 

believe it is also necessary to retain the 

ability of APHIS to investigate herds 

and premises, if warranted. If OSAs 

initiate investigations, they will provide 

APHIS with a summary of the 

compliance concerns that were 

investigated and supporting evidence, 

along with their recommended 

outcomes for resolutions. APHIS will 

determine whether to accept those 

outcomes or pursue further action. 

Debarment From Participation (§ 148.9) 

Proposed § 148.9 would discuss 

debarment from participation in the 

Plan. These rules are modeled after 

similar provisions in NPIP with some 

changes to reflect the specific needs of 

US SHIP. In particular, US SHIP grants 

powers to APHIS and the OSA, which 

are only granted to the OSA in NPIP. 

This change is needed because the 

diseases covered by US SHIP are FADs. 

The introduction of such diseases into 

the United States has potentially severe 

economic implications, therefore APHIS 

has additional responsibilities for 

controlling these kinds of diseases. 

The section would provide that, 

following an investigation by the OSA, 

its representative, or by APHIS, APHIS 

will notify participants in writing of 

their compliance or noncompliance 

with Plan provisions or with regulations 

of the OSA or APHIS. In the event of a 

finding of noncompliance, the 

notification would articulate that APHIS 

may debar the participant from further 

participation in US SHIP if the 

noncompliance concerns are not 

addressed, and would afford the 

participant time of at least 30 days to 

demonstrate or achieve compliance. 

The section also would state that if 

the participant does not demonstrate or 

achieve compliance within the specified 

time period, APHIS may debar the 

participant from the Plan until the 

participant can demonstrate compliance 

with the plan. 

The section also would provide that 

the debarred participant will be given 

written notice of the bases for the 

debarment and must be given an 

opportunity to present their views in 

accordance with procedures adopted by 

APHIS. Following the participant’s 

statement, APHIS would decide 

whether the debarment will continue. 

All of these provisions are taken from 

NPIP, but with the relevant authorities 

granted to APHIS, instead of just to the 

OSA, as is the case in NPIP. 

The paragraph also would provide 

that APHIS’ decision will be final unless 

the debarred participant requests the 

Administrator to review the eligibility of 

the debarred participant for continued 

participation within 30 days from the 

issuance of the written notice of 

debarment. The request for review 

would have to state all facts and reasons 

upon which the participant relies to 

consider the debarment to be in error. 

As promptly as circumstances allow, the 

Administrator would respond in writing 

to uphold or reverse the debarment. 

Testing (§ 148.10) 

Proposed § 148.10 discusses testing 

within US SHIP. The section is modeled 

after similar provisions in NPIP, with 

some changes to reflect the specific 

needs of US SHIP. The section provides 

that samples shall be collected by an 

authorized agent or State or Federal 

inspector and tested by a laboratory 

authorized in accordance with proposed 

§ 148.11. This provision is modeled 

after NPIP. Additionally, as in NPIP, the 

Program Standards document would be 

used to describe the testing procedures. 

Authorized Laboratories (§ 148.11) 

Proposed § 148.11 would outline 

requirements for authorized 

laboratories. These proposed 

requirements are modeled after similar 

provisions in NPIP, with some changes 

to reflect the specific needs of US SHIP. 

The section would provide that in order 

to be authorized to conduct testing, 

laboratories must be approved by APHIS 

in accordance with 9 CFR 71.22 and 

must be NAHLN laboratories approved 

as proficient in the assays for diseases 

specified by US SHIP. This provision is 

modeled on NPIP. However, NPIP does 

not require laboratories to belong to the 

NAHLN in order to be authorized to 

conduct testing within NPIP. This is 

because the diseases of poultry covered 

by NPIP are often not FADs, and testing 

for them may be conducted at 

laboratories without specific proficiency 

in FADs. However, ASF and CSF are 

FADs, and only certain laboratories 

within the NAHLN have both the assays 

and the requisite proficiency in their 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107052 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

usage to test for these diseases. 

Accordingly, even within the US SHIP 

pilot program, all testing for ASF and 

CSF has been conducted at NAHLN 

laboratories. 

The paragraph also requires 

authorized laboratories to follow the 

NAHLN guidance document for 

reporting diseases specified as part of 

US SHIP directly to APHIS. Because all 

the laboratories used in US SHIP will be 

NAHLN laboratories, US SHIP does not 

need to outline additional reporting 

procedures within the regulations and 

can instead refer parties to the relevant 

procedures and processes in the 

NAHLN guidance document. 

Subpart B (Special Provisions for 

Slaughtering Facilities) 

Subpart B of US SHIP, ‘‘Special 

Provisions for Slaughtering Facilities,’’ 

would consist of proposed §§ 148.21 

through 148.23 and contain provisions 

for slaughtering facilities to participate 

in US SHIP. As with other sections of 

the proposed regulations, these 

provisions are modeled after similar 

provisions in NPIP, with some changes 

to reflect the specific needs of US SHIP. 

Definition (§ 148.21) 

Proposed § 148.21 lists definitions 

relevant to the subpart. We are 

proposing to define slaughtering facility 

as ‘‘a slaughter plant processing swine 

that is Federally inspected or under 

State inspection that the US Department 

of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection 

Service has recognized as equivalent to 

Federal inspection.’’ This definition is 

drawn from the definition of the term 

meat-type chicken slaughter plant 

within § 146.31 of the NPIP regulations, 

with appropriate modifications to reflect 

the nature of the swine industry. 

Participation (§ 148.22) 

Proposed § 148.22(a) would require 

participating slaughter facilities to 

comply with the general provisions of 

§ 148.4 of the regulations as well as the 

slaughter facility-specific provisions of 

subpart B. 

Proposed § 148.22(b) would require 

participating slaughter facilities to 

supply the information outlined in 

§ 148.3(d), which is also required of all 

other Plan participants, with one 

exception. Instead of providing 

expected site capacity (number of 

breeding swine and/or growing pigs), as 

required by § 148.3(d)(5), slaughtering 

facilities should provide expected 

slaughter capacity (number of swine 

slaughtered daily/weekly). 

Terminology and Classification; 

Slaughtering Facilities (§ 148.23) 

Proposed § 148.23 discusses 

terminology and classification for 

slaughtering facilities within US SHIP. 

Proposed § 148.23(a) would provide 

that participating slaughtering facilities 

may use designs illustrated at an APHIS 

website listed in the regulations if they 

have complied with the requirements 

specified in § 148.23. This provision is 

modeled on NPIP. However, NPIP 

reproduces the designs in the 

regulations. As in subpart A, we would 

not include the designs in the 

regulations so that we may propose to 

update them using notices published in 

the Federal Register. The notice-based 

process for updating the designs for 

various classifications would be 

identical to that articulated in proposed 

subpart A for updating the designs for 

the classifications listed in that subpart. 

Proposed § 148.23(b) would outline 

the ASF–CSF certification requirements 

for slaughter facilities, which include 

maintaining animal and product 

segregation. This certification is 

modeled after the certifications for 

various poultry diseases covered by 

NPIP. The specific requirements of the 

ASF–CSF monitored certification draw 

on the US SHIP pilot Program Standards 

document. 

Proposed § 148.23(b)(1) would require 

slaughter participants to have the 

capability to separate ASF–CSF 

monitored slaughter swine from swine 

and pork products from source farms 

not certified in the Plan in a manner 

satisfactory to the OSA. This provision 

is based on provisions of the pilot 

program, which is modeled after 

analogous provisions in NPIP. 

Proposed § 148.23(b)(2) requires 

participants to report disease events 

with clinical signs compatible with 

ASF–CSF, including ante- or postmortem indicators of possible 

hemorrhagic disease, for surveillance 

testing. Compatible clinical signs are 

listed in the US SHIP Program 

Standards. This provision is based on 

provisions of the pilot program, which 

is modeled after analogous provisions in 

NPIP. 

Part 149 Procedures for Changing US 

SHIP Provisions 

Proposed part 149, consisting of 

§§ 149.1 through 149.9, outlines the 

procedures for changing the provisions 

of US SHIP. As with other sections of 

the proposed regulations, these 

provisions are modeled after similar 

provisions in NPIP, with some changes 

to reflect the specific needs of US SHIP. 

However, while most provisions in US 

SHIP are not only modeled after similar 

provisions of NPIP, but also based on 

provisions in the US SHIP pilot 

program, this is not true of many of the 

provisions in part 149. This is because 

the pilot program operates as an 

industry-led endeavor under the 

auspices of an independent overseer, 

whereas the codified US SHIP 

regulations would be an APHISadministered program in which an 

industry-led advisory committee would 

advance policy recommendations for 

incorporation into the US SHIP 

regulations. 

To that end, if this proposed rule is 

finalized and US SHIP regulations are 

issued, APHIS intends to establish an 

advisory committee pursuant to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

USC. 10, FACA) to serve as the GCC for 

US SHIP. Our current thinking is that 

the GCC would best function as an 

independent FACA committee operating 

under a charter rather than as a 

subcommittee within one of USDA’s 

existing FACA committees; however, we 

request specific public comment on this 

matter. 

Definitions (§ 149.1) 

Proposed § 149.1 lists definitions 

relevant to part 149. We are proposing 

to define Administrator as ‘‘the 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, or any person 

authorized to act for the Administrator.’’ 

This definition is drawn from NPIP and 

is generally consistent with the 

definition of the term within APHIS’ 

regulations in 9 CFR chapter I. 

We are proposing to define Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) as ‘‘the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service of the US 

Department of Agriculture.’’ This 

definition is drawn from NPIP and is 

generally consistent with the definition 

of this term throughout APHIS’ 

regulations in 9 CFR chapter I. 

We are proposing to define 

Department as ‘‘the US Department of 

Agriculture.’’ This definition is taken 

directly from NPIP. 

We are proposing to define House of 

Delegates as ‘‘a decision-making body 

composed of US swine industry 

participants and subject matter experts 

that aim to represent the interests of 

swine industry stakeholders across each 

of the participating States. The House of 

Delegates meets at regular intervals for 

the purpose of sharing research and 

outcomes from program-related 

initiatives, reviewing and voting on 

proposed program changes, and 

formally facilitating the program’s 

development.’’ This definition is drawn 

from the US SHIP pilot program. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107053 

We are proposing to define noncommercial facility as ‘‘a swine 

production site with <100 breeding 

swine (gilts, boars, and/or sows) or 

feeder swine. Backyard, exhibition, or 

niche swine production sites are 

considered non-commercial facilities if 

they maintain fewer than 100 breeding 

swine or feeder swine.’’ This definition 

is taken from the US SHIP pilot program 

enrollment documents, which were 

created by the industry, academia, and 

regulatory experts that worked to 

develop the pilot program. An 

interdisciplinary group of APHIS 

Veterinary Services subject matter 

experts contributed to the definitions 

developed for the pilot program. 

We are proposing to define Official 

State Agency as ‘‘the State veterinary 

authority recognized by the Department 

to cooperate in the administration of the 

Plan.’’ This definition is drawn from 

NPIP, and as noted throughout this 

document, OSAs would play a 

functionally equivalent role within US 

SHIP to that which they play within 

NPIP. 

We are proposing to define person as 

‘‘a natural person, firm, or corporation.’’ 

This definition is drawn from NPIP, 

and, as within NPIP, we would use 

person in both an individual and a 

corporate sense within US SHIP. 

We are proposing to define Plan to 

mean the provisions of the US Swine 

Health Improvement Plan contained in 

part 149. This definition is derived from 

NPIP, where the term is used 

equivalently. 

We are proposing to define Senior 

Coordinator to mean an employee of 

APHIS whose duties may include, but 

will not necessarily be limited to: 

• Serving as Executive Secretary of 

the GCC; 

• Serving as chairperson of the House 

of Delegates conference; 

• Coordinating the State 

administration of US SHIP through 

periodic reviews of the administrative 

procedures of OSAs, according to the 

applicable provisions of the Plan and 

the Memorandum of Understanding; 

and 

• Coordinating future rulemakings to 

incorporate the proposed changes of the 

provisions adopted at the House of 

Delegates meeting into the regulations 

in parts 148 and 149. 

This definition is drawn from NPIP, 

in which the Senior Coordinator fulfills 

a similar role. 

We are proposing to define 

slaughtering facility as ‘‘a slaughter 

plant processing swine that is Federally 

inspected or under State inspection that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Food Safety Inspection Service has 

recognized as equivalent to Federal 

inspection.’’ This definition is drawn 

from the definition of the term meattype chicken slaughter plant within 

§ 146.31 of the NPIP regulations, with 

appropriate modifications to reflect the 

nature of the swine industry. 

We are proposing to define State as 

‘‘any State, the District of Columbia, or 

Puerto Rico.’’ This definition is drawn 

from NPIP. We acknowledge that the 

definition of State within the AHPA 

itself is more expansive, and also 

includes all other territories or 

possessions of the United States. 

However, as within NPIP, the sole 

participating territory or possession in 

US SHIP is Puerto Rico, and no other 

territories or possessions are expected to 

participate. 

We are proposing to define swine as 

‘‘a porcine animal raised to be a feeder 

pig, raised for seedstock, raised for 

exhibition, or raised for slaughter.’’ As 

noted previously, this definition is 

derived from AMS’ regulations in 7 CFR 

59.200. 

We are proposing to define US SHIP 

Program Standards as ‘‘a document that 

contains biosecurity, traceability, and 

sampling and testing procedures 

approved by the Administrator for use 

under parts 148 and 149. This document 

may be obtained from the US SHIP 

website at (address to be added in final 

rule) or by writing to APHIS at U.S. 

Swine Health Improvement Plan, 

APHIS, USDA, 920 Main Campus Drive, 

Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606.’’ This 

definition is modeled after NPIP with 

changes to reflect the contact 

information for US SHIP. 

We are proposing to define US SHIP 

Technical Committee as ‘‘a committee 

made up of technical experts on swine 

health, including topics such as 

biosecurity, traceability, and sampling 

and testing. The committee consists of 

representatives from the swine and pork 

products industries, universities, and 

State and Federal governments that are 

appointed by the Senior Coordinator 

and reviewed by the General Conference 

Committee. The committee will 

consider proposed changes to the 

Provisions and Program Standards of 

the Plan and provide recommendations 

to the House of Delegates as to whether 

they are scientifically or technically 

sound.’’ This definition is derived from 

NPIP with modifications to fit the 

specific characteristics of US SHIP. 

General (§ 149.2) 

Section 149.2 would provide that 

changes to the US SHIP regulations will 

be proposed according to the procedures 

outlined in proposed part 149, provided 

that the Department reserves the right to 

make changes without observance of 

these procedures when such action is 

deemed necessary in the public interest. 

This provision is drawn from NPIP. 

General Conference Committee (§ 149.3) 

Proposed § 149.3 would outline rules 

governing the GCC. The US SHIP GCC 

is primarily modeled on the US SHIP 

pilot program’s GCC as described above. 

As noted above, however, the pilot 

program’s GCC is an industry-governed 

body making recommendations to 

industry members, whereas under US 

SHIP the GCC would be a FACA 

committee making recommendations to 

APHIS regarding the administration of 

the Program. As described above, 

delegates at the House of Delegates 

meeting elect the GCC members. The 

GCC members will serve as an advisory 

committee to the US SHIP program to 

provide these recommended changes to 

APHIS. 

Proposed § 149.3(a) would provide 

that the GCC Chairperson and the Vice 

Chairperson shall be elected by the 

members of the GCC by simple majority. 

This provision is modeled from the US 

SHIP pilot program’s GCC. The 

paragraph also states that a 

representative of APHIS will serve as 

the Executive Secretary, who provides 

staff support for the GCC. The pilot 

program’s GCC does not have this 

provision, but it must be added because 

of APHIS’ administration of US SHIP. 

The paragraph also would provide that 

the GCC shall consist of nine members. 

It would also provide that, when 

members are affiliated with a swine 

production premises or slaughter plant, 

that premises or plant must maintain US 

SHIP certification status in good 

standing. GCC members must also not 

have any known violations of other 

APHIS regulations within the past three 

years. This provision is modeled the US 

SHIP pilot program’s GCC. 

The paragraph would state that the 

nine members will consist of one 

member to be elected from each of six 

designated regions, and three members 

at large, by delegates at the House of 

Delegates meeting. A non-voting State 

Animal Health Official, as 

recommended by the National Assembly 

of State Animal Health Officials, will 

also be appointed to the GCC. This 

provision is primarily modeled after 

NPIP, which also uses a mix of regional 

and at large representatives. As a result 

of a 2024 recommendation within the 

US SHIP pilot program, however, the 

proposed rule is different from NPIP in 

that it adds a non-voting State Animal 

Health Official. The designated regions 

within US SHIP would differ from those 

in NPIP; rather, they track the regions 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107054 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

during the pilot program, which are 

based on the number of swine 

operations in each region. These 

designations help ensure relative parity 

among regions in terms of operations 

covered. As noted above, there would be 

six designated regions proposed in US 

SHIP, consisting of the following States 

and territories: 

• North Atlantic: Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, 

Michigan, and Kentucky. 

• East Central: Wisconsin, Indiana, 

Illinois, and Missouri. 

• North Central: North Dakota, South 

Dakota, and Minnesota. 

• Central: Iowa. 

• South Atlantic: Virginia, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 

Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and 

Puerto Rico. 

• Western: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, 

Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, 

Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, 

Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, 

California, Alaska, and Hawaii. 

Proposed § 149.3(a)(7) provides that 

delegates will elect one member-at-large 

from representatives of the slaughtering 

facilities and one member-at-large from 

non-commercial facilities designations. 

This provision is modeled on the rules 

governing the US SHIP pilot program’s 

GCC, which also includes 

representatives affiliated with these two 

classifications. 

Proposed § 149.3(a)(8) would state 

that one member at large will be elected 

without geographic or classification 

affiliation. Additionally, it would state 

that no more than two members of any 

standing GCC may be employed by, or 

associated with, the same business 

entity. This latter provision is meant to 

preclude one business entity from 

having disproportionate influence over 

the decisions of the GCC. 

Proposed § 149.3(b) would provide 

that the regional committee members 

will be elected by the official delegates 

of their respective regions, and the 

members-at-large will be elected by all 

voting delegates. These provisions are 

modeled on the rules governing the GCC 

within NPIP, and also governed the US 

SHIP pilot program’s GCC. Delegate 

selection would be discussed in 

proposed § 149.5. 

Proposed § 149.3(c) would state that 

three GCC members shall be elected at 

each House of Delegates meeting. All 

members shall serve for a period of 3 

years, subject to the continuation of the 

Committee by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. In the event that there is a 

mid-term vacancy of a GCC position, the 

GCC shall make an interim appointment 

by simple majority vote of its members, 

and the appointee shall serve until the 

next House of Delegates at which time 

an election will be held. That election 

will be to fill the remaining term of the 

vacated position. These provisions also 

governed the US SHIP pilot program’s 

GCC. 

Proposed § 149.3(d) would outline the 

duties of the GCC. Proposed 

§ 149.3(d)(1) would provide that the 

GCC should represent the interests of 

the entire United States swine industry 

regarding the operation of US SHIP. 

This provision also governed the US 

SHIP pilot program’s GCC. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(2) would state 

that the GCC should advise the 

Department on the relative importance 

of maintaining adequate departmental 

funding for US SHIP to enable the 

APHIS Senior Coordinator and other 

Department staff to fully administer the 

provisions of the Plan. This provision is 

not present in the pilot program, 

because it is, again, administered by the 

industry itself. However, as noted 

above, the codified US SHIP regulations 

would be an APHIS-administered 

program in which an industry-led 

Federal advisory committee would 

advance policy recommendations to the 

Department. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(3) would state 

that the GCC shall advise and make 

yearly recommendations to the 

Department with respect to the Plan 

budget well in advance of the start of 

the budgetary process. This provision is 

not present in the pilot program, but, for 

similar reasons to the foregoing 

provision, is necessary as US SHIP 

transitions to an APHIS-administered 

program. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(4) would state 

that the GCC shall assist the Department 

in planning, organizing, and conducting 

the Swine Health Improvement Plan 

House of Delegates Meeting. The US 

SHIP pilot administrative team plans 

and organizes the House of Delegates 

meeting under the pilot program; 

however, as US SHIP transitions to an 

APHIS-administered program working 

in consort with a FACA committee, this 

role would likewise shift to one of joint 

assistance in planning and organizing 

the conference. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(5) would state 

that the GCC shall advise and make 

recommendations to the Department 

with respect to the Swine Health 

Improvement Plan Technical 

Committees’ leadership selection and 

composition. This provision is modeled 

on NPIP, which also makes use of a 

Technical Committee. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(6) would state 

that the GCC shall review each proposal 

submitted to be considered by the 

House of Delegates. It also would state 

that the GCC shall meet jointly with the 

Swine Health Improvement Plan 

Technical Committees to consider the 

technical aspects of each proposal. This 

provision also governed the interaction 

between the GCC and House of 

Delegates within the US SHIP pilot 

program. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(7) would outline 

the areas in which the GCC shall 

represent the entire United States swine 

industry in the interim between House 

of Delegates meetings: 

• Advising the Department regarding 

administrative procedures and 

interpretations of the Plan provisions as 

contained in parts 148 and 149. This 

provision is modeled on a similar 

provision within NPIP. The pilot 

program’s GCC does not have this 

provision, but it must be added as US 

SHIP transitions to an APHISadministered program working in 

consort with a FACA committee. 

• Assisting the Department in 

evaluating comments received from 

interested persons concerning proposed 

amendments to the Plan. Again, this 

provision, which is modeled on a 

similar provision within NPIP, did not 

govern the pilot program’s GCC but 

must be added as US SHIP transitions 

to an APHIS-administered program 

working in consort with a FACA 

committee. 

• Recommending to the Secretary of 

Agriculture any changes in the 

provisions of the Plan in situations 

where postponement until the next 

House of Delegates would seriously 

impair operation of the program. Such 

recommendations would remain in 

effect only until confirmed or rejected 

by the next House of Delegates, or until 

they are rescinded by the committee. 

This provision, which is also modeled 

on a similar provision within NPIP, did 

not govern the pilot program’s GCC but 

must be added as US SHIP transitions 

to an APHIS-administered program 

working in consort with a FACA 

committee. 

• The Committee may convene an 

emergency meeting of the House of 

Delegates as the need arises. This 

provision governs the GCC during the 

pilot program and would remain in 

effect. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(8) provides that 

the GCC shall serve as an official 

advisory committee for the study of 

problems relating to swine health and, 

as the need arises, shall make specific 

recommendations to the Secretary of 

Agriculture concerning ways in which 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107055 

the Department may assist the industry 

in addressing these issues. The pilot 

program’s GCC does not have this 

provision, which is modeled on a 

provision within NPIP, but it must be 

added as US SHIP transitions to an 

APHIS-administered program working 

in consort with a FACA committee. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(9) states that the 

GCC shall serve as a direct liaison 

between the US SHIP and the United 

States Animal Health Association 

(USAHA). This provision is modeled on 

a similar provision within NPIP and 

would establish the GCC’s role as an 

intermediary between APHIS and 

USAHA regarding matters pertaining to 

US SHIP as US SHIP transitions to an 

APHIS-administered program working 

in consort with a FACA committee. 

Proposed § 149.3(d)(10) would state 

that the GCC shall advise and make 

recommendations to the Department 

regarding US SHIP involvement or 

representation at swine industry 

functions and activities as deemed 

necessary or advisable for the purposes 

of the Plan. This provision is also 

modeled on a similar provision with 

NPIP. The pilot program’s GCC does not 

have this provision, but it is necessary 

as US SHIP transitions to an APHISadministered program working in 

consort with a FACA committee. 

Submitting, Compiling, and Distributing 

Proposed Changes (§ 149.4) 

Proposed § 149.4(a) would provide 

that changes to the regulations may be 

proposed by any participant, OSA, the 

Department, or any other interested 

person or industry organization. This 

provision, which is modeled on a 

similar provision within NPIP, was not 

part of the pilot program, but it is 

necessary as US SHIP transitions to an 

APHIS-administered program working 

in consort with a FACA committee. 

Proposed § 149.4(b) would provide 

that proposed changes must be 

submitted in writing and reach APHIS 

no later than 100 days prior to the 

opening date of the House of Delegates 

Meeting, and that participants in the 

Plan must submit any proposed changes 

through their OSA. This provision is 

also modeled on a similar provision 

within NPIP and was not part of the 

pilot program but is necessary as US 

SHIP transitions to an APHISadministered program working in 

consort with a FACA committee. 

Proposed § 149.4(c) would provide 

that the name of the proponent must be 

indicated on each proposed change 

when submitted and that each proposal 

should be accompanied by a short 

supporting statement. This provision is 

modeled on a similar provision within 

NPIP and was part of the pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.4(d) would require 

APHIS to notify all persons on the US 

SHIP mailing lists concerning the dates 

and general procedure of the House of 

Delegates Meeting. This provision is 

also modeled on a similar provision 

within NPIP and was not part of the 

pilot program but is necessary as US 

SHIP transitions to an APHISadministered program working in 

consort with a FACA committee. 

Proposed § 149.4(e) would require 

APHIS to compile the proposed 

changes, together with the names of the 

proponents and supporting statements 

and distribute the proposed changes. If 

two or more similar changes are 

submitted, APHIS would try to unify 

them into one proposal acceptable to all 

proponents. Copies would be 

distributed to officials of the OSAs 

working with US SHIP. Additional 

copies would be made available in 

response to individual requests. This 

provision is modeled on a similar 

provision within NPIP, and the basic 

procedure for compiling proposed 

changes was substantially similar 

within the pilot program. However, the 

pilot program does not give APHIS the 

role of compiler. 

Official Delegates (§ 149.5) 

Proposed § 149.5 would outline the 

rules governing official delegates to the 

US SHIP House of Delegates. The 

section provides that each cooperating 

State shall be entitled to one or more 

official delegates, and that the official 

delegates shall be elected by a 

representative group of participating 

industry members and be certified by 

the OSA. It further provides that it is 

recommended, but not required, that the 

official delegates be Plan participants. 

The section also states that official 

delegate allocations for cooperating 

States will be calculated using methods 

outlined in the Program Standards. This 

section states that each official delegate 

shall try to obtain, prior to the House of 

Delegates conference, the 

recommendations of industry members 

of their State regarding each proposed 

change. All of these provisions are 

modeled on the US SHIP pilot 

program’s House of Delegates. Changes 

to the rules governing the House of 

Delegates will be made in accordance 

with proposed § 149.9. As with other 

sections of the proposed regulations, 

these provisions are modeled after 

similar provisions in NPIP, with some 

changes to reflect the specific needs of 

US SHIP. 

Committee Consideration of Proposed 

Changes (§ 149.6) 

Proposed § 149.6 would outline rules 

for the formation of committees and 

consideration of proposed changes to 

the regulations or US SHIP Program 

Standards. 

Proposed § 149.6(a) provides that a 

Biosecurity committee, a Traceability 

Committee, and a Sampling and Testing 

Committee shall be formed to consider 

changes in their respective fields. These 

committees and their respective fields 

are drawn from the US SHIP pilot 

program. 

Proposed § 149.6(b) provides that the 

committees must discuss related 

proposals with other committees. 

Proposed § 149.6(c) would provide 

that the committees shall make 

recommendations to the House of 

Delegates concerning each proposal. 

The individual committee reports shall 

be submitted to the chairperson of the 

House of Delegates, who will combine 

them into a single report showing, in 

numerical order, the committee 

recommendations on each proposal. As 

stated in this text, if the committee 

makes a recommendation, the House of 

Delegates report shall show any 

proposed change in wording. These 

provisions are drawn from the US SHIP 

pilot program. 

The proposed paragraph would 

further state that, once completed, the 

combined committee report will be 

distributed electronically to the OSAs 

prior to the delegates voting on the final 

day of the House of Delegates 

conference. This provision involving the 

OSAs is not present in the pilot 

program, but it is necessary as US SHIP 

transitions to an APHIS-administered 

program working in consort with State 

cooperators and a FACA committee. 

Proposed § 149.6(d) would provide 

that Technical Committee meetings 

shall be open to any interested person, 

and that advocates for or against any 

proposal may appear before the 

appropriate committee and present their 

views. 

House of Delegates Consideration of 

Proposed Changes (§ 149.7) 

Proposed § 149.7(a) would state that 

the chairperson of the House of 

Delegates shall be a representative of the 

Department. This provision is not 

present in the pilot program, but it is 

necessary as US SHIP transitions to an 

APHIS-administered program. 

Proposed § 149.7(b) would provide 

that, at the time designated for voting on 

proposed changes by official delegates, 

the chairperson of the GCC and all 

committee chairpersons shall sit at the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107056 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

speaker’s table and assist the 

chairperson of the House of Delegates at 

the time designated for voting on 

proposed changes by the official 

delegates. This provision is drawn from 

the procedures of the GCC in the US 

SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(c) would state that 

the chairperson shall set the rules of 

order for the GCC. This provision is 

drawn from the procedures of the GCC 

in the US SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(d) would state that 

proposals that have not been submitted 

in accordance with § 149.5 will be 

considered by the House of Delegates 

only with the unanimous consent of the 

GCC. Any such proposals must be 

referred to the appropriate committee 

for consideration before being presented 

for action by the House of Delegates. 

These provisions are drawn from the US 

SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(e) would state that 

voting will be by States, and each 

official delegate, as determined by 

§ 149.5, will be allowed one vote on 

each proposal. This provision is drawn 

from the US SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(f) would state that a 

roll call of States for a recorded vote 

will be used when requested by a 

delegate or at the discretion of the 

chairman. This provision is drawn from 

the US SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(g) would state that 

all motions on proposed changes shall 

be for adoption. This provision is drawn 

from the US SHIP pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(h) would state that 

proposed changes shall be adopted by a 

two-thirds majority vote of the official 

delegates present and voting. This 

provision is drawn from the US SHIP 

pilot program. 

Proposed § 149.7(i) would state that 

the House of Delegates conference shall 

be open to any interested person. This 

provision is drawn from the US SHIP 

pilot program. 

Approval of House of Delegates 

Recommendations by the Department 

(§ 149.8) 

Proposed § 149.8 would state that 

proposals adopted by the official 

delegates will be recommended to the 

Department for incorporation into US 

SHIP in parts 148 and 149. The 

paragraph also would reserve the right 

for the Department, as the sponsor of US 

SHIP, to approve or disapprove the 

recommendations of the House of 

Delegates. 

Changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards (§ 149.9) 

Proposed § 149.9 would provide the 

notice-based processes by which certain 

changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards would be made. 

The introductory text of the section 

would provide that the US SHIP 

Program Standards document references 

details on tests and sample types that 

have been approved by the 

Administrator for diseases covered by 

the regulations in proposed part 148, 

approved procedures for maintaining 

biosecurity at a participating swine 

operation, and calculations for official 

delegate allocations. It further would 

provide that changes to any of the 

foregoing will be made in the manner 

set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the 

section. 

Proposed § 149.9(a) would contain the 

normal process for making such 

changes. Under this process, we would 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

providing the proposed changes to the 

US SHIP Program Standards document 

and the basis for the changes. The notice 

would request public comment. If no 

comments are received on the notice, or 

if the comments received do not call 

into question the basis for the changes, 

we would publish a subsequent notice 

in the Federal Register announcing that 

the changes have been made to the US 

SHIP Program Standards document and 

making available the revised US SHIP 

Program Standards document. If 

comments identify concerns with the 

proposed revisions or call into question 

the basis for the changes, APHIS would 

consider and address those comments as 

appropriate prior to making any 

changes. 

Proposed § 149.9(b) would provide 

the process for making immediate 

changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards document. If the 

Administrator determines that that 

procedures for maintaining biosecurity 

and animal traceability at participating 

swine operations that are described in 

the US SHIP Program Standards 

document are not adequate, or that 

testing procedures must be revised in 

order to ensure that they provide 

reliable assurances regarding test 

results, we would make the relevant 

change to the US SHIP Program 

Standards document. As soon as is 

feasible, we would publish a notice in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

change, as well as the basis for the 

change. The notice would request 

public comment. Under this process, we 

may make further revisions the Program 

Standards document based on the 

comments received. If comments 

identify concerns with the proposed 

revisions or call into question the basis 

for the changes, APHIS would consider 

and address those comments as 

appropriate prior to making any 

changes. 

Executive Orders 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov website (see ADDRESSES

above for instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov). 

This proposed rulemaking would 

result in the creation of regulations 

governing the US Swine Health 

Improvement Plan (US SHIP), 9 CFR 

parts 148 and 149. US SHIP would be 

a voluntary livestock improvement 

program aimed at improving 

biosecurity, traceability, and disease 

surveillance for swine health. The swine 

industry has requested the 

establishment of US SHIP, which builds 

on an existing pilot program initiated by 

industry. The proposal would codify US 

SHIP as a Federal regulatory program 

and allow participants to obtain 

certifications of disease-monitored 

status for African swine fever and 

classical swine fever. Establishment of 

US SHIP would allow participants to 

market their products with the relevant 

certification status, which could limit 

disruptions to international and 

interstate commerce during outbreaks. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 2 CFR 

chapter IV.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are in conflict with this 

rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107057 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 60 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under Review—Open for 

Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. Please send a copy of 

your comments to: (1) Docket No. 

APHIS–2022–0061, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

2C–10–16, 4700 River Road, Unit 25, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238, and (2) 

Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 

404–W, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250. A 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

proposed rule. APHIS will respond to 

any information collection-related 

comments in the final rule. All 

comments will also become a matter of 

public record. For assistance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act or 

information collection reporting 

process, please write to aphis.pra@

usda.gov or telephone (301) 851–2533. 

APHIS is proposing the creation of 

new regulations, 9 CFR parts 148 and 

149, governing the United States Swine 

Health Improvement Plan (‘‘US SHIP’’), 

a voluntary livestock improvement 

program aimed at bettering biosecurity, 

traceability, and disease surveillance for 

swine health. The swine industry 

requested the establishment of US SHIP, 

which builds on an existing pilot 

program initiated by the swine industry. 

The proposal would codify US SHIP as 

a Federal regulatory program and allow 

participating sites to obtain 

certifications of disease-free status for 

African swine fever and classical swine 

fever. Establishment of US SHIP would 

allow producers to market their 

products with the relevant disease-free 

status which could limit disruptions to 

international and interstate commerce 

during outbreaks. 

New information collection activities 

resulting from this proposed rule affect 

State government agency and 

commercial respondents. These 

activities include memoranda of 

understanding and cooperative 

agreement financial and performance 

reporting; site enrollment and 

compliance statements; applications for 

certification; interstate certificates of 

veterinary inspection; periodic State 

data reports, animal movement reports, 

herd and site inspections; biosecurity 

plans; cancellation/debarment and 

reconsideration of cancellations; 

solicitation of participant input on 

program implementation and 

solicitation of current industry practices 

to inform program standards; and 

recordkeeping. Further information on 

the activities can be found in this 

proposed rulemaking and in the 

information collection request 

submitted to OMB. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

comments will help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: The public 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.275 hours [or 

minutes] per response. 

Respondents: Herd owners, breeders, 

slaughter plant workers, laboratory 

technicians, State animal health 

officials, and individuals. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 12,051. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 18. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 213,112. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 60,463 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

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. Official State Agencies will 

maintain in the US SHIP Site Status 

Verification Database limited collected 

information. Detailed participant and 

premises level-specific identifiers 

remain with the respective US SHIP 

OSA and are not reported to, or 

contained in, the US SHIP Site Status 

Verification Database. At this time, 

other activities are documented on 

paper. For information pertinent to EGovernment Act compliance related to 

this proposed rule, please contact Mr. 

Joseph Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork 

Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 

851–2533. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 148 and 

149 

Swine, producers, slaughtering 

facilities, certification, African swine 

fever, Classical swine fever, Official 

State Agency. 

■ Accordingly, under the authority of 7 

U.S.C. 8301 et seq., we propose to 

amend 9 CFR chapter I by adding parts 

148 and 149 to subchapter G to read as 

follows: 

PART 148—UNITED STATES SWINE 

HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

Sec. 

148.1 Definitions. 

148.2 Administration. 

148.3 Participation. 

148.4 General provisions for all 

participants. 

148.5 Terminology and classification; 

general. 

148.6 Terminology and classification; herds 

and products. 

148.7 Supervision. 

148.8 Maintenance of Certification. 

148.9 Debarment from participation. 

148.10 Testing. 

148.11 Authorized laboratories. 

Subpart B—Special Provisions For 

Slaughtering Facilities 

Sec. 

148.21 Definitions. 

148.22 Participation. 

148.23 Terminology and classification; 

slaughtering facilities. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 148.1 Definitions. 

For the purpose of this subpart, unless 

the context otherwise requires, the 

following terms shall have the meanings 

assigned to them in this section. The 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107058 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

singular form shall also impart the 

plural. 

Administrator. The Administrator, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, or any person authorized to act 

for the Administrator. 

African swine fever (ASF). A highly 

contagious viral hemorrhagic disease 

cause by a large, enveloped, doublestranded DNA virus of the family 

Asfarviridae and genus Asfivirus that 

affects animals in the family Suidae, 

including domestic pigs, feral swine, 

and Eurasian wild boar. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS). The Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Authorized agent. Any person 

designated under § 148.7 to collect 

official samples for submission to an 

authorized laboratory in accordance 

with § 148.10. 

Authorized laboratory. A laboratory 

that meets the requirements of § 148.11 

and is thus qualified to perform assays 

in accordance with this part. 

Boar. A sexually intact male swine. 

Boar stud. A swine production site 

with mature boars that distributes 

semen to other swine production sites. 

Classical swine fever (CSF). A highly 

contagious viral septicemia, caused by a 

small, enveloped RNA virus of the 

family Flaviviridae and genus 

Pestivirus, that affects animals in the 

family Suidae, including domestic pigs, 

feral swine, and Eurasian wild boar. 

Department. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). 

Farrow to feeder/finisher facility. A 

swine production site with breeding 

females (gilts and/or sows) and grow 

feeder swine for purposes other than 

breeding stock replacement for this 

particular farm site, and that houses 

≥1,000 breeder or feeder swine. 

Feral swine. Free-roaming swine. 

Gilt. A young female swine that has 

not produced a litter. 

Growing pig facility. A swine 

production site with ≥1,000 feeder 

swine (nursery, grower, or finisher). 

Live animal marketing operation. A 

dealer with a livestock yard/buying 

facility that markets swine for resale of 

such swine to slaughter facilities. 

National Animal Health Laboratory 

Network (NAHLN). The NAHLN is a 

nationally coordinated network and 

partnership of primarily Federal, State, 

and university-associated animal health 

laboratories that provide animal health 

diagnostic testing, methods research and 

development, and expertise for 

education and extension to detect 

biological threats to the nation’s animal 

agriculture, thus protecting animal 

health, public health, and the nation’s 

food supply. 

Non-commercial facility. A swine 

production site with <100 breeding 

swine (gilts, boars, and/or sows) or 

feeder swine. Backyard, exhibition, or 

niche swine production sites are 

considered non-commercial facilities if 

they maintain fewer than 100 breeding 

swine or feeder swine. 

Official State Agency. The State 

veterinary authority recognized by the 

Department to cooperate in the 

administration of the Plan. 

Person. A natural person, firm, or 

corporation. 

Plan. The provisions of the US Swine 

Health Improvement Plan (US SHIP) 

contained in this part. 

Pork product. A product or byproduct 

produced or processed in whole or in 

part from swine. 

Senior Coordinator. An employee of 

APHIS whose duties may include, but 

will not necessarily be limited to: 

(1) Serving as Executive Secretary of 

the General Conference Committee; 

(2) Serving as chairperson of the 

House of Delegates conference; 

(3) Coordinating the State 

administration of the US SHIP through 

periodic reviews of the administrative 

procedures of the Official State 

Agencies, according to the applicable 

provisions of the Plan and the 

Memorandum of Understanding; and 

(4) Coordinating future rulemakings to 

incorporate the proposed changes of the 

provisions adopted at the House of 

Delegates meeting into the regulations 

in this part and part 149 of this 

subchapter. 

Small holding facility. A swine 

production site with ≥100 and <1,000 

breeding swine (gilts, boars, and/or 

sows) or feeder swine. 

Sow. An adult female swine that has 

produced one or more litters. 

State. Any State, the District of 

Columbia, or Puerto Rico. 

Swine. A porcine animal raised to be 

a feeder pig, raised for seedstock, raised 

for exhibition, or raised for slaughter. 

US SHIP Program Standards. A 

document that contains biosecurity, 

traceability, and sampling and testing 

procedures approved by the 

Administrator for use under this part 

and part 149 of this subchapter. This 

document may be obtained from the US 

SHIP website at [ADDRESS TO BE 

ADDED IN FINAL RULE] or by writing 

to APHIS at US Swine Health 

Improvement Plan (US SHIP), APHIS, 

USDA, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 

200, Raleigh, NC 27606. 

US SHIP Technical Committee. A 

committee made up of technical experts 

on swine health, including topics such 

as biosecurity, traceability, and 

sampling and testing. The committee 

consists of representatives from the 

swine and pork products industries, 

universities, and State and Federal 

governments that are appointed by the 

Senior Coordinator and reviewed by the 

General Conference Committee. The 

committee will consider proposed 

changes to the Provisions and Program 

Standards of the Plan and provide 

recommendations to the House of 

Delegates as to whether they are 

scientifically or technically sound. 

§ 148.2 Administration. 

(a) The Department cooperates with 

Official State Agencies in the 

administration of the Plan through a 

Memorandum of Understanding. In the 

Memorandum of Understanding, the 

Official State Agency must designate a 

contact representative to serve as a 

liaison between APHIS and the Official 

State Agency. 

(b) The administrative procedures, 

decisions, and records of the Official 

State Agency relevant to the 

implementation of US SHIP are subject 

to review by APHIS. The Official State 

Agency shall carry out the 

administration of the Plan within the 

State according to the applicable 

provisions of the Plan and the 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

(c) The Official State Agency of any 

State may adopt regulations applicable 

to the administration of the Plan in such 

State that further define the provisions 

of the Plan or establish higher standards 

compatible with the Plan. 

(d) Laboratories authorized in 

accordance with § 148.11 will conduct 

diagnostic testing when determining the 

status of a participating herd with 

respect to official Plan classifications. 

§ 148.3 Participation. 

(a) The US SHIP is a cooperative 

Federal-State-Industry program for 

preventing and monitoring specific 

swine diseases. US SHIP will apply new 

or existing diagnostic technology. US 

SHIP establishes and implements 

certification programs that identify boar 

stud facilities, breeding herds, growing 

pig facilities, farrow to feeder/finisher 

facilities, small holding facilities, noncommercial facilities, live animal 

marketing operations, and slaughtering 

facilities that meet biosecurity, 

traceability, and surveillance standards 

for specific diseases articulated in this 

part in States with Official State 

Agencies that operate under a 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Department pursuant to § 148.2. 

(b) Any person producing or dealing 

in swine or pork products may 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107059 

participate in US SHIP when they have 

demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the 

Official State Agency, that their 

facilities, personnel, and practices are 

adequate for carrying out the applicable 

provisions of the Plan and has signed an 

agreement with the Official State 

Agency to comply with the general and 

the applicable specific provisions of the 

Plan and any regulations of the Official 

State Agency under § 148.2. 

(c) Each participant shall comply with 

the Plan until released by such Agency. 

(d) Any person seeking to enroll in 

any participating State may participate 

with any of their eligible swine 

operations or slaughter facilities within 

each participating State. The 

prospective participant shall enroll by 

providing the following information to 

the Official State Agency: 

(1) Name, address, and contact 

information of the swine owner or 

owner of the slaughtering facility (US 

SHIP participant); 

(2) Address (including latitude and 

longitude, if a 911 address is not 

available for the site) of animal location, 

and name and contact information of 

the premises (site) owner; 

(3) Premises identification number 

(PIN) of physical participating site 

location (animal location) and common 

name of site; 

(4) Premises type, such as boar stud 

facilities, breeding herds, growing pig 

facilities, farrow to feeder/finisher 

facilities, small holding facilities, noncommercial facilities, live animal 

marketing operations, and slaughtering 

facilities; 

(5) Expected site capacity (number of 

swine), unless the site is a slaughtering 

facility; 

(6) Name and contact information of 

the individual submitting an 

acknowledgment that they understand 

and intend to comply with the 

regulations and relevant US SHIP 

Program Standards; and 

(7) Acknowledgement by this 

individual that they understand and 

intend to comply with the regulations 

and relevant US SHIP Program 

Standards and the date of their 

acknowledgement. 

(e) No person shall be compelled by 

the Official State Agency to qualify 

swine or pork products for any of the 

other classifications described in 

§ 148.10 as a condition of qualification 

for the U.S. African Swine FeverClassical Swine Fever Monitored 

certification. Participation in the U.S. 

African Swine Fever-Classical Swine 

Fever Monitored certification, however, 

is a condition of participation in such 

other classifications. 

(f) Participation in the Plan shall 

entitle the participant to use the Plan 

emblem reproduced at [ADDRESS TO 

BE ADDED IN FINAL RULE]. If APHIS 

proposes to revise the Plan emblem, 

APHIS will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register making available the 

revised emblem, as well as the basis for 

the revisions, and requesting public 

comment. If no comments are received 

on the notice, or if the comments 

received do not call into question the 

basis for the revisions, APHIS will 

publish a subsequent notice in the 

Federal Register responding to the 

comments received and announcing the 

revised emblem. If comments identify 

concerns regarding the basis for the 

proposed revisions, however, APHIS 

will take no action to revise the emblem 

until addressing those concerns as 

appropriate. 

§ 148.4 General provisions for all 

participants. 

(a) Participants must retain records 

necessary for demonstrating compliance 

with certification requirements. 

(b) A participant’s animals, animal 

products, and records as needed to 

confirm certification requirements of 

swine or pork products, and material 

used to advertise products, are subject 

to inspection by the Official State 

Agency or APHIS at any time in 

accordance with § 148.8(b) and any 

additional requirements by the Official 

State Agency. 

(c) Advertising must be in accordance 

with the Plan, and applicable rules and 

regulations of APHIS, the Official State 

Agency, and the Federal Trade 

Commission. A participant advertising 

swine or pork products as being of any 

official classification may include in 

their advertising reference to associated 

or franchised facilities only when such 

facilities produce swine or pork 

products carrying the same official 

classification. 

(d) APHIS and the Official State 

Agency will use PINs to verify 

participation in the Plan. Existing PINs 

will be recognized for this purpose, and 

the Official State Agency will assign a 

new PIN for participants who do not 

have an existing PIN. 

§ 148.5 Terminology and classification; 

general. 

(a) The official classifications 

provided in § 148.6 and the various 

designs illustrative of the official 

classifications reproduced at [ADDRESS 

TO BE ADDED IN FINAL RULE] may be 

used only by participants and to 

describe swine or pork products that 

have met all the specific requirements of 

such classifications. 

(b) Swine and pork products 

produced under the Plan shall lose their 

identity under Plan terminology when 

they are purchased for resale by, or 

consigned to, nonparticipants. 

§ 148.6 Terminology and classification; 

herds and products. 

(a) Terms and classifications for 

participating swine operations. 

Participating swine operations and 

products produced from them which 

have met the respective requirements 

specified in this section for a particular 

term or classification may be designated 

by the corresponding emblem illustrated 

at [ADDRESS TO BE ADDED IN FINAL 

RULE]. If APHIS proposes to revise an 

emblem, APHIS will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register making available 

the revised emblem, as well as the basis 

for the revision, and requesting public 

comment. If no comments are received 

on the notice, or if the comments 

received do not call into question the 

basis for the revisions, APHIS will 

publish a subsequent notice in the 

Federal Register responding to the 

comments received and announcing the 

revised emblem. If comments identify 

concerns regarding the basis for the 

proposed revisions, however, APHIS 

will take no action to revise the emblem 

until addressing those concerns as 

appropriate. 

(b) ASF–CSF Monitored. This program 

is intended to be the basis from which 

swine operations enact measures for the 

prevention and monitoring of ASF–CSF. 

The program is intended to assist with 

the detection of ASF–CSF in swine 

through monitoring for clinical signs or 

suspicious test results for ASF–CSF and 

participation in the active ASF–CSF 

surveillance program. A swine 

operation and all swine or pork 

products produced by that operation 

will qualify as ‘‘ASF–CSF Monitored’’ 

when the Official State Agency 

determines that a prospective 

participant has met the following 

requirements: 

(1) The swine operation only 

introduces herd additions that have 

either been exclusively sourced from 

certified ASF–CSF Monitored sites or 

sites that have participated in testing 

and clinical observation of their herds 

sufficient to demonstrate freedom from 

ASF and CSF. 

(2) The swine operation collects 

samples and submits them for testing for 

any disease incident or death loss that 

is suggestive of ASF or CSF. Testing 

must be conducted through the USDA 

Swine Hemorrhagic Fevers Surveillance 

Plan or a foreign animal disease 

investigation at a laboratory authorized 

in accordance with § 148.11 and using 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107060 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

tests approved by the Administrator to 

detect the presence of ASF and CSF. 

Requirements for participant sampling 

and testing can be found in the Program 

Standards. 

(3) The swine operation demonstrates 

and maintains competency in tracking 

all swine movements onto and off of 

certified sites, as described in the US 

SHIP Program Standards. 

(4) The swine operation maintains 

biosecurity in a manner approved by 

APHIS and verified by the Official State 

Agency. Approved procedures for 

maintaining biosecurity are listed in the 

US SHIP Program Standards. Changes to 

the US SHIP Program Standards will be 

made in accordance with § 149.9 of this 

subchapter. 

§ 148.7 Supervision. 

(a) The Official State Agency may 

designate qualified persons as 

authorized agents collect samples for 

diagnostic testing as required by 

§ 148.10. 

(b) The Official State Agency shall 

employ or authorize qualified persons 

as State inspectors to verify compliance 

with the requirements of the Plan. 

(c) Authorities of qualified persons to 

collect samples or verify program 

compliance that are issued under the 

provisions of this section shall be 

subject to cancellation by APHIS or by 

the Official State Agency on the grounds 

of incompetence or failure to comply 

with the provisions of the Plan or failure 

to comply with regulations of APHIS or 

the Official State Agency. Such actions 

shall not be taken until a thorough 

investigation has been made by APHIS 

or the Official State Agency and the 

authorized person has been given notice 

of the proposed action and the basis 

therefore and has an opportunity to 

present their views. 

§ 148.8 Maintenance of Certification. 

(a) The Official State Agency will 

verify whether each certified participant 

continues to meet the requirements to 

maintain certification at least one time 

annually, or more if determined 

appropriate for purposes of determining 

Plan compliance. 

(b) All participant records supporting 

continued program participation must 

be able to be made available to a State 

inspector and examined at least 

annually. The Official State Agency 

must maintain enrollment records for 5 

years after the date of enrollment and 

inspection records for 3 years after the 

date of inspection. The Official State 

Agency will arrange on-site inspections 

of herds and premises by its 

representatives or designee if the State 

inspector has reasonable basis to believe 

that a breach of biosecurity, specimen 

testing, or other provision may have 

occurred for Plan programs for which 

the herds have qualified. The Official 

State Agency must provide a summary 

of the compliance concerns it 

investigated and its recommended 

resolutions or outcomes to APHIS for 

review and possible further action. 

(c) APHIS may conduct on-site 

inspections of herds and premises if it 

has reasonable basis to believe that a 

breach of biosecurity, specimen testing, 

or other provisions may have occurred. 

§ 148.9 Debarment from participation. 

(a) Upon completion of an 

investigation by the Official State 

Agency, its representative, or APHIS, 

APHIS will notify the participant in 

writing of their compliance or 

noncompliance with the Plan provisions 

or regulations of the Official State 

Agency. In the event of a finding of 

noncompliance, the notification will 

articulate that APHIS may debar the 

participant from further participation in 

the Plan if the noncompliance concerns 

are not addressed, and will afford the 

participant at least 30 days to 

demonstrate or achieve compliance. If 

compliance is not demonstrated or 

achieved within the specified time, 

APHIS may debar the participant from 

further participation in the Plan, 

including any opportunities to market 

product or animals as having originated 

from a Plan participant, until the 

participant can demonstrate compliance 

with the plan. APHIS shall provide the 

debarred participant with written notice 

of the bases for the debarment. Such 

decision shall be final unless the 

debarred participant, within 30 days 

after the issuance of the written notice 

of debarment, requests the 

Administrator to review the eligibility of 

the debarred participant for 

participation in the Plan. The request 

for review must state all facts and 

reasons upon which the participant 

relies to consider the debarment order to 

be error. As promptly as circumstances 

allow, the Administrator will respond in 

writing to uphold or reverse the 

debarment. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 148.10 Testing. 

Samples for official tests shall be 

collected by a Federal inspector, State 

inspector, or its authorized agent. 

Samples must be tested by a laboratory 

authorized in accordance with § 148.11. 

Procedures for testing shall be described 

in the Program Standards. Changes to 

these procedures will be made in 

accordance with § 149.9 of this 

subchapter. 

§ 148.11 Authorized Laboratories. 

In order to be authorized to conduct 

testing as provided for in § 148.10, 

laboratories must be approved by APHIS 

in accordance with § 71.22 of this 

chapter and must be NAHLN 

laboratories approved as proficient in 

the assays for diseases specified as part 

of US SHIP. Authorized laboratories 

will follow the NAHLN guidance 

document for reporting diseases 

specified as part of US SHIP directly to 

APHIS. 

Subpart B—Special Provisions For 

Slaughtering Facilities 

§ 148.21 Definitions. 

For the purpose of this subpart, unless 

the context otherwise requires, the 

following term shall have the meaning 

assigned to it in this section. The 

singular form shall also impart the 

plural. 

Slaughtering facility. A slaughter 

plant processing swine that is federally 

inspected or under State inspection that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Food Safety and Inspection Service has 

recognized as equivalent to Federal 

inspection. 

§ 148.22 Participation. 

(a) Participating slaughtering facilities 

shall comply with the provisions in 

§ 148.4 and the special provisions of 

this subpart. 

(b) Except for the information 

required in § 148.3(d)(5), participating 

slaughtering facilities shall provide the 

same information required for other 

participants as outlined in § 148.3(d). 

For purposes of complying with 

§ 148.3(d)(5), slaughtering facilities 

must provide expected slaughter 

capacity (number of swine slaughtered 

daily/weekly). 

§ 148.23 Terminology and classification; 

slaughtering facilities. 

(a) Terms and Designs for 

Participating Slaughtering Facilities. 

Participating slaughtering facilities 

which have met the respective 

requirements specified in this section 

may be designated by the terms and 

their corresponding designs. The terms 

and corresponding designs will be 

illustrated at [ADDRESS TO BE ADDED 

IN FINAL RULE]. If APHIS proposes to 

revise the Plan terms and corresponding 

designs, APHIS will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register making available 

the revised terms and designs, as well 

as the basis for the revisions, and 

requesting public comment. If no 

comments are received on the notice, or 

if the comments received do not call 

into question the basis for the revisions, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107061 

APHIS will publish a subsequent notice 

in the Federal Register responding to 

the comments received and announcing 

the revised terms and designs. If 

comments identify concerns with the 

proposed revisions, APHIS will 

consider and address those comments as 

appropriate. 

(b) ASF–CSF Monitored. This program 

is intended to determine the presence of 

ASF and CSF in swine through routine 

monitoring of each participating 

slaughtering facility. A participating 

slaughtering facility will qualify for the 

ASF–CSF Monitored is classification 

when the Official State Agency 

determines that it has met both of the 

following requirements: 

(1) Any participant slaughtering 

facility handling ASF–CSF Monitored 

slaughter swine must be able to keep 

those swine and swine pork products 

separate from other swine and swine 

pork products from source farms not 

enrolled certified as ASF/CSF 

Monitored in the Plan in a manner 

satisfactory to the Official State Agency. 

(2) Participants must report disease 

events with clinical signs compatible 

with ASF–CSF, including ante- or postmortem indicators of possible 

hemorrhagic disease, for surveillance 

testing. Compatible clinical signs are 

listed in the US SHIP Program 

Standards. 

PART 149—PROCEDURE FOR 

CHANGING THE UNITED STATES 

SWINE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN 

Sec. 

149.1 Definitions. 

149.2 General. 

149.3 General Conference Committee. 

149.4 Submitting, compiling, and 

distributing proposed changes. 

149.5 Official Delegates. 

149.6 Committee consideration of proposed 

changes. 

149.7 House of Delegates consideration of 

proposed changes. 

149.8 Approval of House of Delegates 

recommendations by the Department. 

149.9 Changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 149.1 Definitions. 

For the purpose of this part, unless 

the context otherwise requires, the 

following terms shall have the meanings 

assigned to them in this section. The 

singular form shall also impart the 

plural. 

Administrator. The Administrator, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, or any person authorized to act 

for the Administrator. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS). The Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Department. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

House of Delegates. A decisionmaking body composed of U.S. swine 

industry participants and subject matter 

experts that aim to represent the 

interests of swine industry stakeholders 

across each of the participating States. 

The House of Delegates meets at regular 

intervals for the purpose of sharing 

research and outcomes from programrelated initiatives, reviewing and voting 

on proposed program changes, and 

formally facilitating the program’s 

development. 

Non-commercial facility. A swine 

production site with <100 breeding 

swine (gilts, boars, and/or sows) or 

feeder swine. Backyard, exhibition, or 

niche swine production sites are 

considered non-commercial facilities if 

they maintain fewer than 100 breeding 

swine or feeder swine. 

Official State Agency. The State 

veterinary authority recognized by the 

Department to cooperate in the 

administration of the Plan. 

Person. A natural person, firm, or 

corporation. 

Plan. The provisions of the US Swine 

Health Improvement Plan (US SHIP) 

contained in this part. 

Senior Coordinator. An employee of 

the Service whose duties may include, 

but will not necessarily be limited to: 

(1) Serving as Executive Secretary of 

the General Conference Committee; 

(2) Serving as chairperson of the 

House of Delegates Conference; 

(3) Coordinating the State 

administration of the US SHIP through 

periodic reviews of the administrative 

procedures of the Official State 

Agencies, according to the applicable 

provisions of the Plan and the 

Memorandum of Understanding; and 

(4) Coordinating future rulemakings to 

incorporate the proposed changes of the 

provisions adopted at the House of 

Delegates meeting into the regulations 

in part 148 of this subchapter and this 

part. 

Slaughtering facility. A slaughter 

plant processing swine that is federally 

inspected or under State inspection that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Food Safety and Inspection Service has 

recognized as equivalent to Federal 

inspection. 

State. Any State, the District of 

Columbia, or Puerto Rico. 

Swine. A porcine animal raised to be 

a feeder pig, raised for seedstock, raised 

for exhibition or raised for slaughter. 

US SHIP Program Standards. A 

document that contains biosecurity, 

traceability, and sampling and testing 

procedures approved by the 

Administrator for use under part 148 of 

this subchapter and this part. This 

document may be obtained from the US 

SHIP website at [ADDRESS TO BE 

ADDED IN FINAL RULE] or by writing 

to APHIS at US Swine Health 

Improvement Plan (US SHIP), APHIS, 

USDA, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 

200, Raleigh, NC 27606. 

US SHIP Technical Committee. A 

committee made up of technical experts 

on swine health, including topics such 

as biosecurity, traceability, and 

sampling and testing. The committee 

consists of representatives from the 

swine and pork products industries, 

universities, and State and Federal 

governments that are appointed by the 

Senior Coordinator and reviewed by the 

General Conference Committee. The 

committee will consider proposed 

changes to the Provisions and Program 

Standards of the Plan and provide 

recommendations to the House of 

Delegates as to whether they are 

scientifically or technically sound. 

§ 149.2 General. 

Changes in part 148 of this subchapter 

and this part shall be proposed in 

accordance with the procedure 

described in this part, provided that the 

Department reserves the right to make 

changes in part 148 of this subchapter 

and this part without observance of 

such procedure when such action is 

deemed necessary in the public interest. 

§ 149.3 General Conference Committee. 

(a) The GCC shall consist of nine 

elected members. When a member is 

affiliated with a swine production 

premises or slaughter plant, that 

premises or plant must maintain US 

SHIP certification statuses in good 

standing. GCC members must also not 

have any known violations of other 

APHIS regulations within the past 3 

years. The members of the General 

Conference Committee will elect the 

Committee Chairperson and the Vice 

Chairperson by simple majority. An 

APHIS representative will serve as 

Executive Secretary and will provide 

the necessary staff support for the 

General Conference Committee. A State 

Animal Health Official without voting 

responsibilities will also be appointed 

to the Committee. The appointment 

shall be based on a recommendation 

from the National Assembly of State 

Animal Health Officials. The nine 

voting General Conference Committee 

members will consist of one member to 

be elected, as provided in paragraph (d) 

of this section, from each of six 

designated regions, and three members 

at large. The six designated regions 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
107062 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

consist of the States and territories in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section: 

(1) North Atlantic: Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, 

Michigan, and Kentucky. 

(2) East Central: Wisconsin, Indiana, 

Illinois, Missouri. 

(3) North Central: North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and Minnesota. 

(4) Central: Iowa. 

(5) South Atlantic: Virginia, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 

Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and 

Puerto Rico. 

(6) Western: Texas, Oklahoma, 

Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, 

Montana, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona, 

Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, 

California, Alaska, and Hawaii. 

(7) In addition to the above six 

designated regions, one member-at-large 

will be elected for each of the following 

classifications of the Plan: 

(i) Slaughtering facilities; and 

(ii) Non-commercial facilities. 

(8) One member at-large will be 

elected without geographic or 

classification affiliation. No more than 

two members of any standing General 

Conference Committee may be 

employed by, or associated with, the 

same business entity. 

(b) The regional committee members 

will be elected by the official delegates 

of their respective regions, and the 

members-at-large will be elected by all 

voting delegates. Delegate selection, as 

discussed in § 149.5. 

(c) Three members shall be elected at 

each House of Delegates. All members 

shall serve for a period of 3 years, 

subject to the continuation of the 

Committee by the Secretary of 

Agriculture. In the event that there is a 

mid-term vacancy of a General 

Conference Committee position, the 

General Conference Committee shall 

make an interim appointment by simple 

majority vote of its members, and the 

appointee shall serve until the next 

House of Delegates, at which time an 

election will be held. That election will 

be to fill the remaining term of the 

vacated position. 

(d) The duties and functions of the 

General Conference Committee shall be 

as follows: (1) Represent the interests of 

the entire United States swine industry 

with regard to the operation of US SHIP. 

(2) Advise and make 

recommendations to the Department on 

the relative importance of maintaining 

adequate departmental funding for the 

Swine Health Improvement Plan to 

enable the Senior Coordinator and other 

Department staff to fully administer the 

provisions of the Plan. 

(3) Advise and make yearly 

recommendations to the Department 

with respect to the Swine Health 

Improvement Plan budget well in 

advance of the start of the budgetary 

process. 

(4) Assist the Department in planning, 

organizing, and conducting the Swine 

Health Improvement Plan House of 

Delegates Meeting. 

(5) Advise and make 

recommendations to the Department 

with respect to the Swine Health 

Improvement Plan Technical Committee 

leadership selection and composition. 

(6) Review each proposal submitted to 

be considered by the House of Delegates 

and meet jointly with the Swine Health 

Improvement Plan Technical 

Committees to consider the technical 

aspects and accuracy of each proposal. 

(7) During the interim between House 

of Delegates meetings, represent the 

entire United States swine industry 

through the following activities: 

(i) Advise the Department with 

respect to administrative procedures 

and interpretations of the Plan 

provisions as contained in part 148 of 

this subchapter and this part. 

(ii) Assist the Department in 

evaluating comments received from 

interested persons concerning proposed 

amendments to the Plan provisions. 

(iii) Recommend to the Secretary of 

Agriculture any changes in the 

provisions of the Plan as may be 

necessitated by unforeseen conditions 

when postponement until the next 

House of Delegates would seriously 

impair the operation of the program. 

Such recommendations shall remain in 

effect only until confirmed or rejected 

by the next House of Delegates, or until 

rescinded by the committee. 

(iv) Convene an emergency meeting of 

the House of Delegates as the need 

arises. 

(8) Serve as an official advisory 

committee for the study of problems 

relating to swine health and as the need 

arises, make specific recommendations 

to the Secretary of Agriculture 

concerning ways in which the 

Department may assist the industry in 

solving these problems. 

(9) Serve as a direct liaison between 

the US SHIP and the United States 

Animal Health Association. 

(10) Advise and make 

recommendations to the Department 

regarding US SHIP involvement or 

representation at swine industry 

functions and activities as deemed 

necessary or advisable for the purposes 

of the US SHIP. 

§ 149.4 Submitting, compiling, and 

distributing proposed changes. 

(a) Changes in part 148 of this 

subchapter and this part may be 

proposed by any participant, Official 

State Agency, the Department, or other 

interested person or industry 

organization. 

(b) Proposed changes must be 

submitted in writing so as to reach 

APHIS not later than 100 days prior to 

the opening date of the House of 

Delegates Meeting, and participants in 

the Plan must submit their proposed 

changes through their Official State 

Agency. 

(c) The name of the proponent must 

be indicated on each proposed change 

when submitted. Each proposal should 

be accompanied by a brief supporting 

statement. 

(d) APHIS will notify all persons on 

the US SHIP mailing lists concerning 

the dates and general procedure of the 

House of Delegates Meeting. 

(e) The proposed changes, together 

with the names of the proponents and 

supporting statements, will be compiled 

by APHIS and distributed. When two or 

more similar changes are submitted, 

APHIS will endeavor to unify them into 

one proposal acceptable to each 

proponent. Copies will be distributed to 

officials of the Official State Agencies 

cooperating in the US SHIP. Additional 

copies will be made available for 

meeting individual requests. 

§ 149.5 Official Delegates. 

Each cooperating State shall be 

entitled to one or more official 

delegates. The official delegates shall be 

elected by a representative group of 

participating industry members and be 

certified by the Official State Agency. It 

is recommended, but not required, that 

the official delegates be Plan 

participants. Each official delegate shall 

endeavor to obtain, prior to the House 

of Delegates conference, the 

recommendations of industry members 

of their State with respect to each 

proposed change. Official delegate 

allocations for cooperating States will be 

calculated in accordance with the 

methods described in the US SHIP 

Program Standards. Changes to these 

methods will be made in accordance 

with § 149.9. 

§ 149.6 Committee Consideration of 

proposed changes. 

(a) The following committees shall be 

established to give preliminary 

consideration to the proposed changes 

falling in their respective fields: 

(1) Biosecurity. 

(2) Traceability. 

(3) Sampling and Testing. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules 107063 

(b) The committees must discuss 

related proposals with other 

committees. 

(c) The committees shall make 

recommendations to the House of 

Delegates as a whole concerning each 

proposal. The House of Delegates report 

shall show any proposed change in 

wording, record the votes on each 

proposal, and suggest an effective date 

for each proposal recommended for 

adoption. The individual committee 

reports shall be submitted to the 

chairperson of the House of Delegates, 

who will combine them into one report 

showing, in numerical sequence, the 

committee recommendations on each 

proposal. Once completed, the 

combined committee report will be 

distributed electronically to the Official 

State Agencies prior to the delegates 

voting on the final day of the House of 

Delegates conference. 

(d) The Technical Committee 

meetings shall be open to any interested 

person. Advocates for or against any 

proposal may appear before the 

appropriate committee and present their 

views. 

§ 149.7 House of Delegates consideration 

of proposed changes. 

(a) The chairperson of the House of 

Delegates shall be a representative of the 

Department. 

(b) At the time designated for voting 

on proposed changes by the official 

delegates, the chairman of the General 

Conference Committee and all 

committee chairpersons shall sit at the 

speaker’s table and assist the 

chairperson of the House of Delegates. 

(c) The chairperson shall set the rules 

of order for the General Conference 

Committee. 

(d) Proposals that have not been 

submitted in accordance with § 149.5 

will be considered by the House of 

Delegates only with the unanimous 

consent of the General Conference 

Committee. Any such proposals must be 

referred to the appropriate committee 

for consideration before being presented 

for action by the House of Delegates. 

(e) Voting will be by States, and each 

official delegate, as determined by 

§ 149.5, will be allowed one vote on 

each proposal pertaining to the program 

prescribed by the subpart which they 

represent. 

(f) A roll call of States for a recorded 

vote will be used when requested by a 

delegate or at the discretion of the 

chairman. 

(g) All motions on proposed changes 

shall be for adoption. 

(h) Proposed changes shall be adopted 

by a two-thirds majority vote of the 

official delegates present and voting. 

(i) The House of Delegates conference 

shall be open to any interested person. 

§ 149.8 Approval of House of Delegates 

recommendations by the Department. 

Proposals adopted by the official 

delegates will be recommended to the 

Department for incorporation into the 

provisions of the US SHIP in part 148 

of this subchapter and this part. The 

Department reserves the right to 

approve or disapprove the 

recommendations of the House of 

Delegates as an integral part of its 

sponsorship of the US SHIP. 

§ 149.9 Changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards. 

The US SHIP Program Standards 

document contains content on the 

testing requirements for diseases 

covered by the regulations in part 148 

of this subchapter, approved procedures 

for maintaining biosecurity at 

participating swine operations, 

traceability requirements for 

participating swine operations, and 

calculations for official delegate 

allocations. Changes to the US SHIP 

Program Standards document for any of 

the foregoing will be made in the 

following manner: 

(a) Normal process for updating the 

US SHIP Program Standards document. 

(1) APHIS will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register providing the proposed 

changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards document and the basis for 

the changes. The notice will request 

public comment. 

(2) If no comments are received on the 

notice, or if the comments received do 

not call into question the basis for the 

changes, APHIS will publish a 

subsequent notice in the Federal 

Register announcing that the changes 

have been made to the US SHIP Program 

Standards document and making 

available the revised US SHIP Program 

Standards document. If comments 

identify concerns with the proposed 

revisions, APHIS will consider and 

address those comments as appropriate 

prior to taking any action to revise the 

US SHIP Program Standards. 

(b) Process for making immediate 

changes to the US SHIP Program 

Standards document. (1) If the 

Administrator determines that 

procedures for maintaining biosecurity 

and animal traceability at participating 

swine operations that are described in 

the US SHIP Program Standards 

document are not adequate or that 

testing procedures must be revised in 

order to ensure that they provide 

reliable assurances regarding test 

results, APHIS will make the relevant 

change to the US SHIP Program 

Standards document. As soon as is 

feasible, APHIS will publish a notice in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

change, as well as the basis for the 

change. The notice will request public 

comment. 

(2) APHIS may make further revisions 

to the US SHIP Program Standards 

document based on the comments 

received. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

December 2024. 

Donna Lalli, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31386 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2024–2718; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2024–00319–T] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Airbus SAS Model A319–111, –112, 

–113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 

airplanes; Model A320–211, –212, –214, 

–216, –231, –232, –233, –251N, –252N, 

–253N, –271N, –272N, and –273N 

airplanes; Model A321–211, –212, –213, 

–231, –232, –251N, –251NX, –252N, 

–252NX, –253N, –253NX, –253NY, 

–271N, –271NX, –272N, and –272NX 

airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A330–200 

series airplanes; Model A330–300 series 

airplanes; Model A330–800 series 

airplanes; Model A330–900 series 

airplanes; Model A350–941 and –1041 

airplanes; and Model A380–800 series 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report of corrosion and 

cracks on the broadband antenna 

adapter plate during an inspection. This 

proposed AD would require repetitive 

general visual inspections (GVI) of the 

broadband antenna adapter plate, skirt, 

vents, and attachment fittings and limit 

the installation of affected parts under 

certain conditions, as specified in a 

European Union Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, which is proposed for 

incorporation by reference (IBR). The 

FAA is proposing this AD to address the 

unsafe condition on these products. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with PROPOSALS