[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65598-65604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31355]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 71 and 85

[Docket No. 98-023-2]
RIN 0579-AB28


Interstate Movement of Swine Within a Production System

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to establish an alternative to 
the current requirements for moving swine interstate. Under this 
alternative, persons may move swine interstate without meeting 
individual swine identification and certain other requirements if they 
move the swine within a single swine production system, and if each 
swine production system signs an agreement with the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service and involved State governments to monitor the 
health of animals moving within the swine production system and to 
facilitate traceback of these animals if necessary. This action will 
facilitate the interstate movement of swine while continuing to provide 
protection against the interstate spread of swine diseases. This action 
will affect persons engaged in swine production who regularly move 
swine interstate in their business operations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 22, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnold Taft, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 
Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in subchapter C of chapter I, title 9, Code of 
Federal Regulations, govern the interstate movement of animals to 
prevent the dissemination of livestock and poultry diseases in the 
United States. Parts 71 and 85 (referred to below as the regulations) 
are included in subchapter C. Part 71 relates to the interstate 
movement of animals, poultry, and animal products, and includes animal 
identification requirements for swine moving interstate. Part 85 
imposes requirements to control the spread of pseudorabies and includes 
certificate and other requirements for the interstate movement of 
swine.
    On September 21, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 
57106-57113, Docket No. 98-023-1) a proposal to amend the regulations 
by establishing an alternative to the current requirements for moving 
swine interstate.
    With some exceptions, parts 71 and 85 require swine moving 
interstate to be individually identified. As we explained in our 
September 2000 proposed rule, these regulations were written when swine 
(other than valued breeding stock) were generally moved interstate only 
when a change in ownership occurred, usually when they were shipped to 
slaughter. However, today swine move interstate while they are raised 
for slaughter or breeding under a swine production system, and while 
they remain under the control of a single owner or group of 
contractually related owners.
    In order to better accommodate this new model of swine production, 
we proposed alternative requirements. As proposed, producers could move 
swine interstate under our alternative procedures if they meet the 
following requirements:
    <bullet> The producers have a written swine production health plan 
(SPHP) signed by the producer(s), the accredited veterinarian(s) for 
the premises, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 
and the States in which the producers in the swine production system 
have premises.
    <bullet> One or more accredited veterinarians identified in the 
SPHP will regularly visit each premises in the swine production system 
to inspect and test swine and will continually monitor the health of 
the swine in the swine production system. Swine may only be moved 
interstate if they have been found free from signs of any communicable 
disease during the most recent inspection of the premises by the swine 
production system accredited veterinarian(s).
    <bullet> The SPHP describes a records system maintained by the 
producers to document the health status of the swine.
    <bullet> Prior to each interstate movement of swine between 
premises within a swine production system, an interstate swine movement 
report must be sent to APHIS, the accredited veterinarian for the 
premises, and the sending and receiving States. That report must 
document the number, type, and health status of the swine being moved. 
Each of these requirements was discussed in detail in our proposal.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
November 20, 2000. We received nine comments by that date. They were 
from representatives of State governments, veterinarians, and pork 
producers and pork producer organizations. They are discussed below by 
topic.

[[Page 65599]]

Contractual Versus Ownership Relationships in Swine Production Systems

    One commenter addressed proposed Sec. 71.19(h)(1), which states 
that ``swine may be moved interstate only to another premises owned and 
operated by the same swine production system.'' This commenter stated 
that this language should be broad enough to allow movements where one 
producer does not necessarily own and operate both sites, but there is 
a contractual relationship between two producers, which could include a 
change in ownership of the animals.
    We agree, and have changed the language in Sec. 71.19(h)(1) to read 
``swine may be moved interstate only to another premises identified in 
a valid swine production health plan for the swine production system.'' 
This language is also more consistent with the definition of swine 
production system, which reads ``A swine production enterprise that 
consists of multiple sites of production, e.g., sow herds, nursery 
herds, and growing or finishing herds, that are connected by ownership 
or contractual relationships, between which swine move while remaining 
under the control of a single owner or a group of contractually 
connected owners.''

Certificates

    One commenter noted that the preamble of the proposed rule referred 
to a ``health certificate,'' and stated that ``a more accurate term is 
'certificate of veterinary inspection' because the Federal or 
accredited veterinarian is not certifying the health status of the 
animals, but instead is certifying that animals were inspected and 
found to comply with the statements contained in the certificate.''
    We are not making any change to the regulatory text of the rule in 
response to this comment, although we have changed the preamble of this 
final rule so that it no longer refers to ``health certificates.'' We 
agree that the preamble of the proposed rule incorrectly referred to 
certificates as ``health certificates,'' a term that is not used 
anywhere in the regulations we are amending. Part 85 defines the term 
``certificate,'' and we believe this definition is consistent with the 
concerns of the commenter. We are not changing the defined term from 
``certificate'' to ``certificate of veterinary inspection'' because 
that could cause even more confusion. Statements in certificates are 
not limited to facts that could be disclosed directly by veterinary 
inspection, but also include such items as the identities of the 
consignor and consignee, the purpose of the movement, and the points of 
origin and destination.

APHIS Participation

    Several commenters stated that APHIS need not sign SPHP's or be 
notified if an SPHP is cancelled, and should not be empowered to cancel 
an SPHP. We are not making any changes based on these comments.
    APHIS is ultimately responsible for ensuring that swine diseases 
are not spread interstate. We need to ensure that individual SPHP's 
meet our requirements. We also need to be aware of possible and actual 
interstate movements. With this information, we can monitor the 
effectiveness of the program and be prepared to take action if it 
appears there is a disease risk. Requiring that we sign each SPHP and 
be notified if an SPHP is cancelled is minimally burdensome and 
effectively and unobtrusively keeps us informed.
    We also believe it is necessary that we have the authority to 
cancel an SPHP to respond to changing circumstances. For example, as 
explained in our proposal, we would cancel an SPHP if participants 
persistently violated the terms of the agreement or our regulations.

Who Must Sign an SPHP and Be Inspected?

    Some commenters stated that not all participants in a swine 
production system are involved in sending or receiving swine 
interstate, yet the proposed rule would require all participants to 
sign the SPHP. In addition, the proposed rule would require all 
participating premises and swine to be inspected by an accredited 
veterinarian. They suggested that only participants who are actually 
involved in moving swine interstate be required to sign the SPHP, and 
that only premises and swine that participate in interstate movement 
should be subject to veterinary inspection under the SPHP. We agree and 
have made those changes in this final rule. Specifically, the 
definition of swine production health plan in Sec. 71.1 would now state 
that the SPHP must be signed by ``an official of each swine production 
system identified in the plan,'' and that the plan must provide for 
inspection of ``all premises that are part of the swine production 
system and that receive or send swine in interstate commerce.'' Note 
that while these changes narrow the coverage of the SPHP, they do not 
reduce our overall authority to inspect any swine moving in interstate 
commerce at any time, or to take enforcement action against any person 
who moves swine interstate in violation of our regulations, whether or 
not that person is a signatory to an SPHP.

Regular and Routine Shipments

    Some commenters suggested that we change the proposed definition of 
swine production system to add a requirement that this term include 
only businesses that regularly and routinely move swine between their 
premises. We are not making any changes based on this comment for 
several reasons. First, the commenters did not indicate what they meant 
by ``regularly and routinely.'' Second, although we understand that 
producers might not want to take advantage of our proposed alternative 
identification system if they participate in few or infrequent 
interstate swine shipments, we believe that is a decision best made by 
producers. The number and regularity of shipments is irrelevant to the 
purpose of our proposed program, which is to offer producers an 
alternative identification system that is less burdensome.

Recordkeeping and Access to Records

    Several commenters addressed our proposed recordkeeping 
requirements or requirements concerning access to records.
    Some commenters objected to our proposed requirement in the 
definition of swine production health plan in Sec. 71.1 that the SPHP 
``describe the recordkeeping system of the swine production system.'' 
We are not making any changes based on this comment. We believe this is 
a reasonable requirement. If a description is included in the SPHP, we 
can tell at the time we review the SPHP whether the recordkeeping 
system is adequate to allow us to trace the movements of animals.
    Commenters also objected to our proposed requirement in 
Sec. 71.19(h)(6) that participants maintain records adequate to ``trace 
any animal on the premises back to its earlier premises and its herd of 
origin.'' We agree that such extensive records are unnecessary and are 
removing the phrase ``and its herd of origin'' from Sec. 71.19(h)(6). 
Records that identify the earlier premises are adequate, because if we 
need to trace an animal farther back, we can use records maintained by 
previous owners.
    Commenters also stated that APHIS and State representatives should 
have access to records only ``for cause.'' ``For cause'' implies that 
there has been a violation of the regulations.
    However, in most cases, we need to examine records simply to ensure 
that the program is working properly. Under Sec. 71.19(h)(7), 
participants must allow access to records ``upon request.'' In

[[Page 65600]]

most cases this means participants will receive advance notice. We 
believe this is fair to participants, while giving APHIS and State 
officials adequate access.

Preemption

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, we included a statement 
in our proposed rule giving notice that any State and local laws and 
regulations in conflict with the proposed provisions would be preempted 
if the proposal is adopted. A number of commenters stated that 
including such a statement in the rulemaking was harmful to State-
Federal cooperative efforts. Other commenters expressed concern that 
the statement meant that a State could not require any conditions for 
movement of animals into the State over and above the Federal 
requirements. Two comments from States specifically questioned whether 
Federal preemption would preclude States from requiring that persons 
moving swine into their States must first obtain an ``import permit'' 
from the State, authorizing movement of the animals and documenting 
that Federal and State movement requirements are met prior to movement 
of the animals.
    Under Executive Order 12988, a Federal agency that proposes a 
regulation is required, among other things, to specify in clear 
language the preemptive effect it believes will be given to its 
regulations. The presence or absence of the statement does not change 
the legal effect of the regulation, and, therefore, should not be 
harmful to State-Federal cooperation. The actual effect of the 
regulation on the specific questions presented would have to be 
determined in an appropriate legal proceeding.
    In the case of State-issued ``import permits,'' commenters stated 
that they are needed for several reasons:
    <bullet> To assign a permit number that is associated with each 
movement of animals and that can be tracked in State records systems;
    <bullet> To document that movements comply with State as well as 
Federal requirements;
    <bullet> To give States a means to respond quickly to new or 
reemerging animal health concerns by denying a permit to stop movement 
of problematic animals; and
    <bullet> To ensure that receiving States have timely notice of 
animals moving into their State.
    We believe that the procedures in this rule, especially use of the 
swine production health plan, allow States to retain all these 
capabilities without issuing separate permits for each movement of 
animals. It is already common State practice to issue long-term permits 
for swine movements within a State, and to allow multiple groups of 
animals to move at different times under the same permit. In this 
regard, the SPHP serves the same function for interstates movements as 
such a State permit.
    States currently can respond to animal health concerns by denying 
or canceling a permit to stop intrastate movements of animals. Under 
this rule, States may achieve the same effect by withdrawing from a 
SPHP. However, animals already in transit are a special problem even 
under systems where States issue individual permits.
    With regard to ensuring that States have timely notice of animal 
movements, we do not believe that the individual permit system 
accomplishes this any better than the interstate swine movement report 
employed by this rule.

Interstate Swine Movement Report (ISMR)

    Commenters raised two issues concerning the proposed ISMR. One was 
whether the form and transmissions could be electronic; the other was 
whether the forms could be transmitted less frequently than proposed. 
In Sec. 71.19(h)(4), our proposal stated that both we and State 
authorities must be notified prior to each interstate movement of 
swine.
    We have no objections to SPHP participants using electronic forms 
and transmitting them electronically. In fact, we encourage this. If 
SPHP participants want to communicate electronically, they should 
provide for that in their agreement. This will ensure that all 
participants are prepared to send and receive ISMR's electronically. We 
have amended the definition of interstate swine movement report in 
Sec. 71.1 in this final rule to clarify that electronic forms and 
transmission are acceptable for notification prior to each interstate 
movement of swine.
    As noted above, our proposal stated that APHIS must receive an ISMR 
prior to each interstate movement of swine. Commenters are correct that 
this could result in many notices on a daily basis for large production 
systems. We agree that this many notices is unnecessary, especially as 
many States routinely forward this information to us. Therefore, in 
this final rule we have removed the requirement for an ISMR prior to 
each interstate movement from Sec. 71.19(h)(4). However, it is 
necessary for us to be generally informed of the number and locations 
of animals moving interstate. We need this information so we can 
monitor the success of the program and compliance with our regulations. 
Therefore, we have added to Sec. 71.19(h)(8) of this final rule a 
requirement that swine production systems send us a written, monthly 
summary of interstate swine movements under the SPHP.

Pseudorabies Status of Swine

    Commenters suggested that it is unnecessary that each ISMR 
specifically include the pseudorabies status of swine moving interstate 
under an SPHP because pseudorabies will be eradicated from the U.S. 
swine population in the next few months. Commenters suggested that the 
ISMR instead include the health status of the swine for diseases of 
regulatory importance. These diseases, which would include pseudorabies 
until that disease is eradicated, would have to be specified in the 
SPHP. We agree with this suggestion and have made this change in the 
definition of interstate swine movement report in Sec. 71.1 of this 
final rule.

Inspections

    The definition of swine production health plan in Sec. 71.1 of our 
proposal provided that swine premises be inspected by an accredited 
veterinarian at least once every 30 days. Some commenters requested 
that we reduce the frequency. We are not making any change based on 
these comments. Reducing the frequency would put accredited 
veterinarians in violation of our accreditation standards in 9 CFR 
161.3(a). Under these standards, accredited veterinarians must complete 
certificates of inspection based on veterinary inspection. An 
accredited veterinarian may not issue any certificate or other document 
``which reflects the results of any inspection, test, [etc.]'' unless 
he or she has personally inspected the animal not more than 10 days 
prior to issuing the certificate or other document. Following the 
initial and subsequent inspections of a herd or flock that is in a 
regular health maintenance program, an accredited veterinarian may 
issue any certificate or other document if not more than 30 days have 
passed since he or she personally inspected the animal.

Commingling Swine

    Commenters objected to the proposed requirement in Sec. 71.19 that 
``receiving premises must not commingle swine received from different 
premises in a manner that prevents identification of the premises that 
sent the swine or groups of swine.'' The commenters interpreted this to 
mean that we proposed to prohibit all commingling.

[[Page 65601]]

This is incorrect. We are only prohibiting commingling if it is done in 
a way that makes it impossible for us to identify the source of 
individual swine. We believe the proposed regulations are clear, and we 
are not making any changes based on this comment.

Size of Participating Swine Production Systems

    One commenter noted that while the proposal provided that swine 
producers of any size could use the proposed alternative procedures, 
the bulk of the proposal's discussion emphasized benefits for the 
largest producers. This commenter stated that it is important to point 
out that the usefulness of the proposed system for identification and 
movement is not related to the size of the operation, rather it is 
related to the producer's production scheme. We agree, and have revised 
the economic analysis in this proposed rule to point out that the new 
procedures can benefit any producer who uses a multi-State approach to 
swine production.

Complexity of the Proposed System

    One commenter stated that the proposed system has grown too 
complex, and involves more persons in swine movement than is necessary.
    We have made no change based on this comment. The changes are all 
based on the need to ensure that the system operates effectively and 
contains sufficient safeguards to prevent the spread of communicable 
diseases. We believe that the detailed requirements for agreements and 
recordkeeping will enhance enforcement and monitoring of the system.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the 
changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The economic analysis prepared for this rule is 
set out below. It includes both a cost-benefit analysis as required by 
Executive Order 12866 and an analysis of the economic effects on small 
entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This rule will offer an alternative to the current requirements for 
moving certain swine interstate.\1\ Under the rule, producers within a 
single production system (e.g., owners of sow farms, nurseries, and 
growing or finishing operations) could move swine interstate without 
meeting the current identification and certification requirements if an 
official of the swine production system signs a swine health production 
plan with APHIS and the sending and receiving States, and if each 
premises: (1) Has an accredited veterinarian visit the individual 
premises at least once every 30 days to assess and document the general 
health of the animals; (2) maintains a recordkeeping system adequate to 
enable APHIS or State inspectors to trace an animal back to its earlier 
premises; and (3) notifies the accredited veterinarian and State 
regulatory officials in the States of origin and destination when swine 
are ready to be moved interstate. The rule will not mandate a specific 
type of recordkeeping system; those in the production system will be 
free to choose their own system of records, as long as APHIS determines 
that the system meets the requirements of Sec. 71.19(h)(6) and 
effectively documents animal health and allows for animal traceback. 
The formal written agreement will have to be approved and signed by the 
producers moving swine interstate under the system, APHIS, and the 
relevant States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule will not apply to swine moving in slaughter 
channels; those animals will have to continue to meet the current 
requirements for individual identification and certification, as 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary economic benefits to producers will be that they avoid 
the costs of individually identifying animals and obtaining a 
certificate for each shipment. Recordkeeping costs under the current 
requirements and under this alternative should be comparable, although 
some different records (copies of SPHP's and ISMR's) would be 
maintained under this final rule.
    The rule will benefit U.S. swine producers who move their animals 
interstate within a single production system. Currently, such systems 
are used by most of the largest producers, although many medium and 
small producers also employ multi-State production. Producers who 
already move their animals interstate during production will be able to 
realize the benefits of this rule with little or no additional cost, 
since many have most of the major elements of the new recordkeeping 
system (i.e., records indicating the source and disposition of swine 
and identifying which swine are grouped together) already in place.
    As an example of the potential cost savings for producers from not 
having to individually identify animals, we estimate that the material 
cost for each identification eartag is about 5 cents and that it takes 
1 person 1 hour to attach about 250 eartags. For a large producer who 
moves 1 million swine interstate each year with an eartag, the annual 
savings if the producer no longer uses eartags would be about $50,000 
in materials and about $40,000 in labor (assuming a labor rate of $10/
hr.). Certificates are typically issued on a per-shipment basis, with 
one certificate issued for all swine in a truckload. For a producer who 
moves 1 million swine interstate each year, the annual cost of 
obtaining certificates is about $140,000 (assuming 250 swine per 
shipment and a veterinarian fee of $35 per shipment).\2\ Under the 
rule, individual identification and certificates will be replaced by 
the records kept in accordance with the regulations and the ISMR's 
issued for interstate movements attesting that the swine were found 
healthy by an accredited veterinarian within the 30 days preceding the 
interstate movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Producers, especially the larger ones, typically obtain 
certificates from accredited veterinarians who are unaffiliated with 
APHIS or the State agricultural agencies. The veterinarian fee of 
$35 is an estimate based on telephone consultation with several 
accredited veterinarians; such fees can vary depending on individual 
circumstances. In some cases, veterinarians charge no fee for 
issuing a certificate, especially when they are dealing with 
producers for whom they provide services on a regular, routine 
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement in the regulations that an accredited veterinarian 
must visit the premises at least once every 30 days to assess the 
general health of the animals should not constitute an additional 
burden for producers, since most are already visited by a veterinarian 
on that basis as part of a regular health maintenance program.
    As indicated above, this rule will eliminate the need for producers 
to obtain certificates from accredited veterinarians on an individual 
shipment basis. This is not expected to have a negative impact on the 
accredited veterinarian's income because most accredited veterinarians 
generate little or no income from issuing certificates, charging either 
a nominal fee or no fee at all, especially when they are dealing with 
producers for whom they provide services on a regular, routine basis. 
This change should allow them to make more productive use of their time 
by allowing them to schedule regular health maintenance visits to a 
facility, rather than visiting when called, possibly at inconvenient 
times, to issue certificates just prior to movement. This change should 
also give producers more

[[Page 65602]]

flexibility in scheduling movements of swine.

Effects on Small Entities

    The rule will primarily benefit U.S. swine producers who move their 
animals interstate within a single production system. Currently, such 
systems are used primarily by the producers who do not appear to be 
small in size by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria. The 
SBA considers a hog farm or feedlot small if its annual receipts are 
$0.5 million or less. We estimate that, of the 114,380 hog and pig 
operations in the United States, no more than about 4 percent (or 
4,575) currently participate in multi-State production systems and, of 
those that do participate, most rank among the industry's largest 
producers.\3\ Census data from the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service (NASS) indicate that, in 1997, the per-farm average value of 
pigs and hogs sold for the top 4 percent of U.S. farms was in excess of 
$0.5 million.\4\ NASS' data suggest, therefore, that many of the 
producers that currently participate in interstate production systems 
are not small by SBA standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Source: Agricultural Statistics, 1999. The hog and pig 
operation count is as of December 1, 1998.
    \4\ See 1997 Census of Agriculture, vol. 1, Part 51, United 
States. As used here, the word ``top'' refers to those farms with 
the highest number of animals sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule may encourage more small producer participation in the 
future, since it will provide them with an economic incentive to 
network together into one production system. For some small producers, 
especially those operating on thin profit margins, this opportunity to 
reduce costs via production networks could make the difference between 
economic viability and insolvency. At this time, however, there is no 
basis to conclude that the number of small producers who might form 
networks in the future will be substantial.
    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 12988

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws 
and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' requires that Agencies 
assess the federalism implications of their policies that have 
federalism implications, i.e., agency statements and actions that have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final 
rule does not have substantial direct effects in these areas, and 
therefore does not require assessment of federalism implications under 
Executive Order 13132.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0161.
    In this final rule we have reduced the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements contained in the proposed rule. We have 
added provisions to allow participants to maintain and submit 
Interstate Swine Movement Reports electronically, rather than by paper 
copy. We have also removed the requirement that producers submit an 
ISMR prior to each interstate movement, and have substituted a less 
burdensome requirement that swine production systems send us a written, 
monthly summary of interstate swine movements under the SPHP.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 71

    Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 85

    Animal diseases, Livestock, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation.

    Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 71 and 85 as follows:

PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114a, 114a-1, 115-117, 120-126, 
134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.


    2. In Sec. 71.1, definitions of interstate swine movement report, 
swine production health plan, swine production system, swine production 
system accredited veterinarian are added in alphabetical order to read 
as follows:


Sec. 71.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Interstate swine movement report. A paper or electronic document 
signed by a producer moving swine giving notice that a group of animals 
is being moved across State lines in a swine production system. This 
document must contain the name of the swine production system; the 
name, location, and premises identification number of the premises from 
which the swine are to be moved; the name, location, and premises 
identification number of the premises to which the swine are to be 
moved; the date of movement; and the number, age, and type of swine to 
be moved. This document must also contain a description of any 
individual or group identification associated with the swine, the name 
of the swine production system accredited veterinarian(s), the health 
status of the herd from which the swine are to be moved, including any 
disease of regulatory concern to APHIS or to the States involved, and 
an accurate statement that swine on the premises from which the swine 
are to be moved have been inspected by the swine production system 
accredited veterinarian(s) within 30 days prior to the interstate 
movement and consistent with the dates specified by the premises' swine 
production health plan and found free from signs of communicable 
disease.
* * * * *
    Swine production health plan. A written agreement developed for a 
swine production system designed to maintain the health of the swine 
and detect signs of communicable disease.
    The plan must identify all premises that are part of the swine 
production system and that receive or send swine in interstate commerce 
and must provide for regular inspections of all identified premises and 
swine on the premises, at intervals no greater than 30 days, by the 
swine production system accredited veterinarian(s). The plan must also 
describe the recordkeeping system of the swine production system.

[[Page 65603]]

The plan will not be valid unless it is signed by an official of each 
swine production system identified in the plan, the swine production 
system accredited veterinarian(s), an APHIS representative, and the 
State animal health official from each State in which the swine 
production system has premises. In the plan, the swine production 
system must acknowledge that it has been informed of and has notified 
the managers of all its premises listed in the plan that any failure of 
the participants in the swine production system to abide by the 
provisions of the plan and the applicable provisions of this part and 
part 85 of this chapter constitutes a basis for the cancellation of the 
swine production health plan, as well as other administrative or 
criminal sanctions, as appropriate.
    Swine production system. A swine production enterprise that 
consists of multiple sites of production; i.e., sow herds, nursery 
herds, and growing or finishing herds, but not including slaughter 
plants or livestock markets, that are connected by ownership or 
contractual relationships, between which swine move while remaining 
under the control of a single owner or a group of contractually 
connected owners.
    Swine production system accredited veterinarian. An accredited 
veterinarian who is named in a swine production health plan for a 
premises within a swine production system and who performs inspection 
of such premises and animals and other duties related to the movement 
of swine in a swine production system.
* * * * *

    3. Section 71.19 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(1), introductory text, by removing the words 
``paragraph (c)'' and adding in their place the words ``paragraphs (c) 
and (h)''.
    b. By adding new paragraphs (h) and (i).


Sec. 71.19  Identification of swine in interstate commerce.

* * * * *
    (h) Swine moving interstate within a swine production system. Swine 
moving within a swine production system to other than slaughter or a 
livestock market are not required to be individually identified when 
moved in interstate commerce under the following conditions:
    (1) The swine may be moved interstate only to another premises 
identified in a valid swine production health plan for that swine 
production system.
    (2) The swine production system must operate under a valid swine 
production health plan, in which both the sending and receiving States 
have agreed to allow the movement.
    (3) The swine must have been found free from signs of any 
communicable disease during the most recent inspection of the premises 
by the swine production system accredited veterinarian(s) within 30 
days prior to movement.
    (4) Prior to the movement of any swine, the producer(s) moving 
swine must deliver the required interstate swine movement report to the 
following individuals identified in the swine production health plan:
    (i) The swine production system accredited veterinarian for the 
premises from which the swine are to be moved, and
    (ii) The State animal health officials for the sending and 
receiving States, and any other State employees designated by the State 
animal health officials.
    (5) The receiving premises must not commingle swine received from 
different premises in a manner that prevents identification of the 
premises that sent the swine or groups of swine. This may be achieved 
by use of permanent premises or individual identification marks on 
animals, by keeping groups of animals received from one premises 
physically separate from animals received from other premises, or by 
any other effective means.
    (6) Each premises must maintain, for 3 years after their date of 
creation, records that will allow an APHIS representative or State 
animal health official to trace any animal on the premises back to its 
previous premises, and must maintain copies of each swine production 
health plan signed by the producer, all interstate swine movement 
reports issued by the producer, and all reports the swine production 
system accredited veterinarian(s) issue documenting the health status 
of the swine on the premises.
    (7) Each premises must allow APHIS representatives and State animal 
health officials access to the premises upon request to inspect animals 
and review records.
    (8) Once a month, each swine production system must send APHIS a 
written summary based on the interstate swine movement report data that 
shows how many animals were moved in the past month, the premises from 
which they were moved, and the premises to which they were moved.
    (i) Cancellation of and withdrawal from a swine production health 
plan. The following procedures apply to cancellation of, or withdrawal 
from, a swine production health plan:
    (1) A State animal health official may cancel his or her State's 
participation in a swine production health plan by giving written 
notice to all swine producers, APHIS representatives, accredited 
veterinarians, and other State animal health officials listed in the 
plan. Withdrawal shall be effective upon the date specified by the 
State animal health official in the notice, but for shipments in 
transit, withdrawal shall become effective 7 days after the date of 
such notice. Upon withdrawal of a State, the swine production health 
plan may continue to operate among the other States and parties 
signatory to the plan.
    (2) A swine production system may withdraw one or more of its 
premises from participation in the plan upon giving written notice to 
the Administrator, the accredited veterinarian(s), all swine producers 
listed in the plan, and State animal health officials listed in the 
plan. Withdrawal shall be effective upon the date specified by the 
swine production system in the written notice, but for shipments in 
transit, withdrawal shall become effective 7 days after the date of 
such notice.
    (3) The Administrator may cancel a swine production health plan by 
giving written notice to all swine producers, accredited veterinarians, 
and State animal health officials listed in the plan. The Administrator 
shall cancel a swine production health plan after determining that 
swine movements within the swine production system have occurred that 
were not in compliance with the swine production health plan or with 
other requirements of this chapter. Before a swine health production 
plan is canceled, an APHIS representative will inform a representative 
of the swine production system of the reasons for the proposed 
cancellation. The swine production system may appeal the proposed 
cancellation in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after being 
informed of the reasons for the proposed cancellation. The appeal must 
include all of the facts and reasons upon which the swine production 
system relies to show that the reasons for the proposed cancellation 
are incorrect or do not support the cancellation. The Administrator 
will grant or deny the appeal in writing as promptly as circumstances 
permit, stating the reason for his or her decision. If there is a 
conflict as to any material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the 
conflict. Rules of practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by 
the Administrator. However, cancellation of the disputed

[[Page 65604]]

swine production health plan shall become effective pending final 
determination in the proceeding if the Administrator determines that 
such action is necessary to protect the public's health, interest, or 
safety. Such cancellation shall become effective upon oral or written 
notification, whichever is earlier, to the swine production system 
representative. In the event of oral notification, written confirmation 
shall be given as promptly as circumstances allow. This cancellation 
shall continue in effect pending the completion of the proceeding, and 
any judicial review thereof, unless otherwise ordered by the 
Administrator.

PART 85--PSEUDORABIES

    4. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126, 134b, 
and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.


Sec. 85.7  [Amended]

    5. Section 85.7 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(3)(i), by removing the phrase ``The swine'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``Unless the swine are moving interstate 
in a swine production system in compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this 
chapter, the swine''.
    b. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), by removing the phrase ``The swine are 
accompanied by a certificate'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``Unless the swine are moving interstate in a swine production system 
in compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter, the swine are 
accompanied by a certificate''.
    c. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the phrase ``The swine are 
accompanied by a certificate'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``Unless the swine are moving interstate in a swine production system 
in compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter, the swine are 
accompanied by a certificate''.

    6. Section 85.8 is amended by removing the period at the end of 
paragraph (a)(3) and adding in its place ``; or''; and by adding a new 
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 85.8  Interstate movement of swine from a qualified negative gene-
altered vaccinated herd.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The swine are moved interstate in a swine production system in 
compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of December 2001.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 01-31355 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U