This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

14617

Vol. 60, No. 53

Monday, March 20, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 75

[Docket No. 94–061–2]

Equine Infectious Anemia

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations concerning the interstate

movement of horses that test positive for

equine infectious anemia to allow the

horses to be moved interstate directly to

slaughter under a permit and in a sealed

conveyance, as an alternative to the

horses being officially identified prior to

the interstate movement with a hot iron

or chemical brand, freezemarking, or a

lip tattoo. This change in the regulations

will provide owners of equine infectious

anemia reactors with an alternative

means of handling their animals while

preventing the spread of this

communicable disease.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Tim Cordes, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, Veterinary Services, Sheep,

Goat, Equine and Poultry Staff, 4700

River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD

20737–1228, (301) 734–3279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 75

(referred to below as the regulations)

contain provisions for the interstate

movement of horses, asses, ponies,

mules, and zebras that test positive for

communicable diseases, including

equine infectious anemia (EIA). The

purpose of those provisions is to

prevent the spread of communicable

diseases, including EIA. EIA, also

known as swamp fever, is a viral disease

of equines that may be characterized by

sudden fever, swelling of the legs and

lower parts of the body, severe weight

loss, and anemia.

Section 75.4(a) of the regulations

defines an EIA reactor as any horse, ass,

mule, pony, or zebra that is subjected to

an official test and found positive.

Under § 75.4(b) of the regulations, no

EIA reactor may be moved interstate

unless the reactor is officially identified

and meets certain other requirements.

Section 75.4(a) of the regulations

defines ‘‘officially identified’’ as the

permanent identification of a reactor

with markings permanently applied by

an Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) representative, a State

representative, or an accredited

veterinarian using a hot iron or

chemical brand, freezemarking, or a lip

tattoo.

On October 6, 1994, we published in

the Federal Register (59 FR 50860–

50861, Docket No. 94–061–1) a proposal

to amend the requirements for interstate

movement in § 75.4(b) by adding a

provision stating that ‘‘Official

identification is not necessary if the

animal is moved directly to slaughter,

traveling under a permit and in a sealed

conveyance.’’ We also proposed to add

definitions of ‘‘official seal’’ and

‘‘permit’’ to § 75.4(a).

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending

December 5, 1994. We received six

comments by that date. They were from

State agriculture agencies, animal rights

organizations, and a horse industry

association. Three of the commenters

supported the proposed rule, although

two of those commenters suggested

additional provisions be included in the

regulations. The remaining three

commenters opposed the proposed rule.

We carefully considered all of the

comments we received. They are

discussed below.

Comment: Horse owners may be

unwilling to part with their animals for

sentimental or economic reasons. If EIA

reactors are not permanently identified,

some horse owners may attempt to

substitute a different horse for an EIA

reactor prior to the reactor’s movement

to slaughter in a sealed conveyance.

Response: We do not believe that the

substitution scenario envisioned by the

commenter will present a problem.

First, we believe that it is unlikely that

a horse owner would attempt to

substitute a healthy horse for a horse

infected with a debilitating disease such

as EIA. Second, when a horse is

identified as an EIA reactor, that horse

is tested for EIA at least two more times,

once by State animal health authorities

and once by APHIS. The APHIS and

State representatives who deal with the

retests will likely be the same APHIS

and State representatives who are

present at the time the reactor is sealed

aboard the conveyance on which it will

be transported to slaughter, and they

would be able to recognize a horse that

they had recently handled.

Additionally, the horse would be

identified, in writing, for the purposes

of the tests and again when the required

forms for its interstate movement were

completed. Given those factors, it is

unlikely that a horse owner could effect

a substitution even if he or she desired

to do so. Finally, a reactor does not

necessarily have to be moved interstate

to slaughter; a horse owner would have

other options. The regulations in

§ 75.4(b) allow, under certain

conditions, a reactor to be moved

interstate to its farm of origin or to a

diagnostic or research facility, where the

reactor would remain quarantined

under State authority until natural

death, slaughter, or until disposed of by

euthanasia.

Comment: APHIS should consider

regulations to prohibit needlessly cruel

identification procedures such as hotiron and chemical branding for those

EIA reactors that are not moved directly

to slaughter in a sealed conveyance. In

that vein, APHIS should research and

encourage the use of microchip

technology and its global

standardization.

Response: Under the current

regulations, the owner of a reactor is not

required to use either of the

identification methods that the

commenter views as being needlessly

cruel. Freezemarking and lip tattoos are

approved for use in addition to hot-iron

and chemical branding, and this final

rule makes available a method by which

the owner of a reactor could move the

animal interstate without permanently

identifying the animal.

With regard to microchips, we

acknowledge that useful information

can be readily stored on and retrieved

from microchips but, as alluded to by
14618 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the commenter, there is no universal

chip reader that can access the

information stored on chips produced

by different manufacturers. That lack of

standardization currently prevents our

use of microchips in nationwide disease

control programs. APHIS will, however,

continue to research the potential uses

of microchips in its disease control

programs.

Comment: The proposed rule does not

specify who is authorized to open a

sealed conveyance. Because there are

only nine equine processing plants in

the United States, EIA reactors may

have to travel several hundred miles to

slaughter. How will the feeding,

watering, and resting of EIA reactors

being transported to slaughter over long

distances be accomplished if the

operator of the conveyance is not

authorized to break the seal? Will an

authorized person be available to open

and reseal the conveyance and ensure

that all EIA reactors are returned to the

conveyance after a stop?

Response: As we stated in the

proposed rule, moving EIA reactors

interstate to slaughter under a permit

and in a sealed conveyance would

ensure that the animals are not diverted

for other uses. Because the seal is

intended to provide evidence that the

reactors have not been removed from

the conveyance during the course of the

interstate movement to the destination

slaughtering establishment, it is

necessary that the seal remain unbroken

until the conveyance arrives at the

destination slaughtering establishment,

where an APHIS or State representative

would remove the seal. The provisions

of this final rule are presented as an

alternative to officially identifying

reactors prior to an interstate movement;

we understand that this alternative may

not be viable in all situations. If the

interstate movement to the destination

slaughtering establishment cannot be

completed without a stop for resting,

feeding, and watering a reactor, the

owner of the reactor would still be able

to move the reactor interstate to

slaughter. Specifically, the owner of the

reactor could choose to have the animal

officially identified and, under the

regulations in § 75.4(b)(4), would be

able to move the reactor interstate

through no more than one approved

stockyard for sale for immediate

slaughter if the reactor is accompanied

by a certificate during the interstate

movement and is moved within 5 days

of its arrival at the approved stockyard

directly to slaughter.

Comment: Without permanent

identification, how will the identity of

EIA reactors be maintained in the event

that the conveyance in which they are

being moved has a mechanical

breakdown or is involved in an

accident?

Response: The operator of the

conveyance in which the reactors are

being transported will have been

furnished with the telephone numbers

of APHIS representatives in the States of

origin and destination prior to his or her

departure from the State of origin. If, for

any reason, the operator is unable to

reach the slaughtering establishment in

the State of destination as planned, the

operator will be able to contact an

APHIS representative, who will make

the necessary arrangements for APHIS

or State personnel to travel to the

location of the conveyance and take

whatever actions may be necessary to

ensure that the reactors are maintained

in isolation sufficient to prevent the

transmission of EIA to other animals

until such time as the movement to the

slaughtering establishment can be

completed.

Comment: When the nearest equine

processing plant is several hundred

miles away, it is not cost effective to

transport a single EIA reactor to

slaughter and it may take several weeks

to gather enough animals to make the

journey economically practical. If an

EIA reactor is not officially identified as

such, there is an increased chance that

the animal could be diverted while

waiting to be transported to slaughter.

Response: At the time an animal is

confirmed as an EIA reactor, the APHIS

representative handling the case will

make arrangements for the animal to be

officially identified or moved directly to

slaughter under permit in a sealed

conveyance, depending on the owner’s

preference. As envisioned by the

commenter, the owner of a reactor may

believe that it is not in his or her best

economic interests to move the reactor

interstate directly to slaughter under a

permit and in a sealed conveyance. In

such a case, the owner of the reactor

would choose to have the animal

officially identified and, under the

regulations in § 75.4(b)(4), could then

move the reactor interstate through no

more than one approved stockyard for

sale for immediate slaughter if the

reactor is accompanied by a certificate

during the interstate movement and is

moved within 5 days of its arrival at the

approved stockyard directly to

slaughter.

Comment: Without official

identification, some reactors may be

diverted from slaughter. If APHIS’

proposal to allow EIA reactors to be

moved interstate to slaughter in a sealed

conveyance without official

identification is motivated by its

concern that branding causes undue

distress to horses, then freezemarking,

which does not cause evident distress in

horses, should be required for reactors

being moved interstate to slaughter in a

sealed conveyance. Although a freeze

brand would not be immediately visible,

the mark would become visible within

2 to 3 weeks, thus allowing for the

identification of any EIA reactors that

may have been diverted from slaughter

while being moved in a sealed

conveyance.

Response: The provisions of this final

rule are intended as an alternative to

official identification. In practical terms,

if we were to require freezemarking in

addition to the permit and seal

requirements, there would be no real

alternative at all. Indeed, the seal

requirement would become an

additional condition not found in the

other provisions of § 75.4(b) regarding

interstate movement to slaughter. As

stated above and in the proposed rule,

we believe that moving EIA reactors

interstate to slaughter under a permit

and in a sealed conveyance will ensure

that the animals are not diverted for

other uses.

Comment: Because of the incidence

and nature of EIA, it is better to expend

the time and expense involved in

permanently identifying an EIA reactor

than to risk its being diverted during

movement and exposing other horses to

the disease.

Response: We took into account

factors such as the incidence and nature

of EIA, as well as other considerations,

during the development of the proposed

rule. After considering those issues, we

concluded that EIA reactors could be

moved interstate to slaughter without

official identification if they were

moved under a permit and in a sealed

conveyance. We believed, and continue

to believe, that the permit and seal

requirements will ensure that the

animals will not be diverted for other

uses or pose a greater risk of spreading

EIA than reactors moved under the

other interstate movement provisions of

§ 75.4(b).

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the proposed rule and in this

document, we are adopting the

provisions of the proposal as a final

rule.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,

therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Because this rule provides an

alternative, the economic impact to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14619

horse owners will be minimal. The

horse owners that will be affected by

this rule change are those that have

horses that test positive for EIA and

voluntarily choose to transport their

horses interstate to slaughter under an

official seal. APHIS estimates that,

annually, between 500 and 1,000 horse

operations have horses that become

infected with EIA. Although it is not

known how many of these operations

are ‘‘small’’ entities (less than $0.5

million in annual sales, according to

Small Business Administration size

criteria), it is likely that most are in that

category.

Current estimates put the number of

horses in the United States between 6

and 10 million. In 1993, about 1 million

horses were tested for EIA. Of these,

1,859 (about 0.18 percent) tested

positive for EIA.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service 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 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

in conflict with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.), the information collection or

recordkeeping requirements included in

this rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under OMB control number

0579–0051.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 75

Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 75 is

amended as follows:

PART 75—COMMUNICABLE

DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES,

PONIES, MULES, AND ZEBRAS

1. The authority citation for part 75

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–113, 115, 117,

120, 121, 123–126, and 134–134h; 7 CFR

2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 75.4, paragraph (a) is amended

by adding two new definitions, in

alphabetical order, and in paragraph (b),

the introductory text is amended by

adding a statement immediately

following the colon, to read as follows:

§ 75.4 Interstate movement of equine

infectious anemia reactors and approval of

laboratories, diagnostic facilities, research

facilities, and stockyards.

(a) * * *

Official seal. A serially numbered

metal or plastic strip, or a serially

numbered button, consisting of a selflocking device on one end and a slot on

the other end, which forms a loop when

the ends are engaged and which cannot

be reused if opened. It is applied by an

APHIS representative or State

representative.

* * * * *

Permit. An official document (VS

Form 1–27 or a State form which

contains the same information, but not

a ‘‘permit for entry’’) issued by an

APHIS representative, State

representative, or accredited

veterinarian which lists the owner’s

name and address, points of origin and

destination, number of animals covered,

purpose of the movement, and one of

the following: The individual animal

registered breed association registration

tattoo, individual animal registered

breed association registration number,

or similar individual identification,

including name, age, sex, breed, color,

and markings.

* * * * *

(b) * * * Provided that official

identification is not necessary if the

reactor is moved directly to slaughter

under a permit and in a conveyance

sealed with an official seal:

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of

March 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6762 Filed 3–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94–SW–22–AD; Amendment

39–9177; AD 95–06–07]

Airworthiness Directives; Robinson

Helicopter Company Model R22

Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes

an existing airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to Robinson Helicopter

Company (RHC) Model R22 helicopters,

that currently requires an initial dye

penetrant inspection of the main rotor

drive forward flexplate (flexplate), and

repetitive visual inspections of certain

installed flexplates. This amendment is

prompted by three accidents reported by

the airworthiness authority of Australia

involving failure of the flexplate,

located between the main rotor gearbox

and clutch assembly. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent failure of the flexplate, failure of

the main rotor drive system, and

subsequent loss of control of the

helicopter.

DATES: Effective April 4, 1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Office of the

Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket No. 94–SW–22–AD, 2601

Meacham Boulevard, Room 663, Fort

Worth, Texas 76137–4298.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Elizabeth Bumann, Aerospace Engineer,

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification

Office, Propulsion Branch, FAA, 3960

Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California

90712, telephone (310) 627–5265, fax

(310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

18, 1994, the FAA issued Priority Letter

AD 94–11–01, applicable to RHC Model

R22 helicopters, to require an initial dye

penetrant inspection of the flexplate on

all RHC Model R22 helicopters, and

repetitive visual inspections of

flexplates that have been in service for

2 or more years or 500 or more hours

time-in-service (TIS). That action was

prompted by three accidents reported by

the airworthiness authority of Australia

involving failure of the flexplate. In one

accident, the flexplate fractured during