[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14617-14619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6762]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 53 / Monday, March 20, 1995 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 14617]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 hot-iron 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 [[Page 14618]] 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
[[Page 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 self-locking 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