[Federal Register: August 26, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 165)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52451-52461]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26au04-11]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 52451]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. 00-094-1]
RIN 0579-AB84
Interstate Movement of Sheep and Goats; Approved Livestock
Facilities, Identification and Recordkeeping Requirements
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the
interstate movement of animals to require livestock facilities that
handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce to be approved by us. This
would include stockyards, livestock markets, buying stations,
concentration points, or any other premises where sheep or goats in
interstate commerce are assembled. Our approval would be contingent on
the facility operator meeting certain minimum standards and other
conditions relating to the receipt, handling, and release of sheep and
goats at the facility, as well as complying with certain animal
identification and recordkeeping requirements. The proposed standards
and other conditions would be based, in part, on recently implemented
regulations relating to the interstate movement of sheep and goats in
order to control the spread of scrapie, a serious disease of sheep and
goats. This proposed rule would provide for the establishment of
standards for the approval of livestock facilities that handle sheep or
goats in interstate commerce.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
October 25, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 00-094-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700
River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. 00-094-1.
E-mail: Address your comment to
regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your comment must be contained in the body
of your message; do not send attached files. Please include your name
and address in your message and ``Docket No. 00-094-1'' on the subject
line.
Agency Web Site: Go to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/cominst.html
for a form you can use to submit an e-mail comment through
the APHIS Web site.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for locating this
docket and submitting comments.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 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) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: You may view APHIS documents published in the
Federal Register and related information, including the names of groups
and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Diane Sutton, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS,
4700 River Road, Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1235; (301) 734-6954.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), regulates the interstate movement of
certain animals (including poultry) and animal products to prevent the
spread of livestock and poultry diseases within the United States. The
regulations are contained in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter C, parts 70
through 89. The regulations in part 71 contain general provisions
covering the interstate transportation of animals and animal products.
The regulations in part 71 also provide the standards and other
requirements that livestock facilities, including stockyards, livestock
markets, buying stations, concentration points, or any other premises
where livestock in interstate commerce are assembled, must follow in
order to be approved by APHIS. The approval of facilities by APHIS is
intended to ensure that such facilities are constructed and operated in
a manner that will help prevent the interstate transmission of
livestock diseases. Such facilities are subject to State or Federal
veterinary supervision. We presently require the approval of livestock
facilities that handle horses, cattle, bison, or swine in interstate
commerce.
The regulations in part 79 contain certain restrictions and other
requirements regarding the interstate movement of sheep and goats in
order to control the spread of scrapie within the United States.
Scrapie is a degenerative and eventually fatal disease affecting the
central nervous systems of sheep and goats. It is a member of a class
of diseases called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Its
control is complicated because the disease has an extremely long
incubation period without clinical signs of disease. APHIS also
administers the Scrapie Flock Certification Program (SFCP), described
at 9 CFR part 54, and produces a program standards document entitled
``Program Standards--Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program,''
which is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/scrapie/umr.
A copy of the program standards also may be obtained by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
On August 21, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR
43964-44003, Docket No. 97-093-5) a final rule amending part 79 by
providing additional restrictions for the interstate movement of sheep
and goats. We also added new requirements with regard to the
identification, recordkeeping, and health status of sheep and goats in
order to provide a more effective national program for surveillance of
scrapie and for the tracing of animals affected with scrapie. In our
August 2001 final rule,
[[Page 52452]]
we also amended part 54 by reinstating a scrapie indemnification
program for sheep and goats. The recent changes to parts 54 and 79 were
designed, in part, to provide a national standard for the control and
eradication of scrapie. These changes also reflect our commitment to
eliminating scrapie from the United States.
For the scrapie eradication program to be effective, it is
imperative that the identification, recordkeeping, and other
requirements in part 79 be carried out at livestock facilities that
handle sheep and goats in interstate commerce. The regulations in part
79 do contain requirements relating to identification, recordkeeping,
and handling of sheep and goats that must be followed by approved
livestock markets. However, at this time, the regulations in part 71 do
not provide for the approval of facilities that handle sheep and goats
as they do for facilities that handle cattle and bison, swine, and
horses. Therefore, it is imperative that an approval process be added
to our regulations to ensure that certain uniform practices relating to
identification, recordkeeping, and handling of sheep or goats be
followed at these facilities in order to help minimize the risk of the
spread of scrapie.
Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations in part 71 by
requiring that livestock facilities handling sheep or goats in
interstate commerce would have to be approved by APHIS and be subject
to State or Federal veterinary supervision. Providing such approval
would be contingent on the facility agreeing to comply with certain
standards and conditions, which we would add to Sec. 71.20 of the
regulations.
Changes to Part 71
The regulations in Sec. 71.20(a) contain an agreement that sets
out the requirements that livestock facilities handling certain classes
of livestock in interstate commerce, i.e., cattle and bison, swine, and
horses, must agree to follow in order to be designated as an approved
livestock facility. (We note that, although sheep are included in the
definition of livestock in Sec. 71.1, the agreement in Sec. 71.20(a)
contains no sheep-related provisions.) In that agreement, paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(13) provide certain general requirements relating to
oversight, recordkeeping, animal identification, cleaning and
disinfection, and facility and equipment standards. These requirements
include:
Providing the State animal health official and the APHIS
area veterinarian in charge a schedule of the facility's sale days that
indicates the types of animals that will be handled at the facility on
each sale day;
Ensuring that an accredited veterinarian, State
representative, or APHIS representative is on the facility premises on
sale days to perform duties in accordance with State and Federal
regulations;
Allowing State representatives and APHIS representatives
access to the facility during normal business hours to evaluate whether
the facility and its operations are in compliance with applicable
regulations;
Providing immediate notification to an APHIS
representative, a State representative, or an accredited veterinarian
of any livestock at the facility that are known to be infected,
exposed, or suspect, or that show signs of possibly being infected,
with any infectious, contagious, or communicable disease;
Placing reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock in
quarantined pens apart from all other livestock while such animals are
at the facility;
Prohibiting the sale of any reactor, suspect, or exposed
livestock, and any livestock that show signs of being infected with any
communicable disease, except when authorized by an APHIS
representative, State representative, or accredited veterinarian;
Maintaining documents such as weight tickets, sales slips,
and records of origin, identification, and destination relating to
livestock handled by the facility for a period of 5 years. Such
documentation is subject to review by APHIS representatives and State
representatives;
Ensuring that all livestock are officially identified in
accordance with the applicable regulations;
Maintaining the facility, including all yards, docks,
pens, alleys, sale rings, chutes, scales, means of conveyance, and
other associated equipment, in a clean and sanitary condition in
accordance with the regulations. The facility also must maintain an
adequate supply of disinfectant and serviceable equipment for cleaning
and disinfection;
Maintaining the facility and equipment in good repair. The
facility must provide well-constructed and well-lighted livestock
handling chutes, pens, alleys, and sales rings for the inspection,
identification, vaccination, testing, and branding of livestock.
Electrical outlets also must be provided at the chute area for branding
purposes; and
Ensuring that quarantined pens are clearly marked as such
and are cleaned and disinfected in accordance with the regulations in
part 71 before being used to pen livestock that are not reactor,
suspect, or exposed animals. The quarantined pens also must have
adequate drainage, and the floors and other parts of the quarantined
pens with which reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock, or their
excrement or discharges, may have contact must be constructed of
materials that are substantially impervious to moisture and able to
withstand continuing cleaning and disinfection.
We propose to amend the agreement in Sec. 71.20(a) so that
livestock facilities handling sheep or goats in interstate commerce
also would be specified as being subject to the general standards just
discussed.
In the agreement in Sec. 71.20, paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(15), and
(a)(16) provide specific additional handling and identification
standards applicable to cattle and bison, swine, and horses,
respectively, that approved livestock facilities must comply with to
help prevent the spread of certain animal diseases specific to those
livestock species. We would amend the agreement in Sec. 71.20(a) to
provide specific additional standards applicable to sheep and goats
that livestock facilities receiving sheep or goats in interstate
commerce would have to follow in order to minimize the risk in the
spread of scrapie. A number of additional conditions would be based on
requirements appearing in part 79 of the regulations.
This proposed rule would provide for the establishment of standards
for the approval of livestock facilities that handle sheep or goats in
interstate commerce, and would facilitate our enforcement of existing
animal identification and recordkeeping requirements in part 79 of the
regulations. A more detailed discussion of the proposed changes to part
71 of the regulations follows.
Definitions
We are proposing to add definitions to Sec. 71.1 of the
regulations for the terms consistent States and inconsistent States.
Both of these terms would be used in conjunction with the approval of
livestock facilities handling sheep or goats, as discussed below.
Consistent States would be defined as those States listed as consistent
States in 9 CFR 79.1 because they meet certain standards, as provided
in part 79, for conducting an active State scrapie program that
involves the identification of scrapie in sheep and goats for the
purpose of controlling the spread of scrapie. Inconsistent States would
be defined as those States not included in the list of
[[Page 52453]]
consistent States appearing in Sec. 79.1. Inconsistent States would
generally include those States that do not consider scrapie a
reportable disease or do not require the quarantine of infected flocks
or source flocks, or that otherwise do not meet the requirements in 9
CFR 79.6. Section 79.6 sets forth the standards for States to qualify
as consistent States. We note that, under the regulations in Sec.
79.1, all 50 States currently hold consistent State status.
We also would amend the definition of livestock in Sec. 71.1 of
the regulations by adding goats, cervids, and camelids to the current
list of animals that includes horses, cattle, bison, sheep, and swine.
Interstate Movement of Diseased Animals
Section 71.3 of the regulations covers the interstate movement of
diseased animals and poultry. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 71.3 provides that
animals or poultry affected with a communicable disease endemic to the
United States cannot be moved interstate except as provided in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of that same section. Scrapie is listed
among the diseases endemic to the United States in Sec. 71.3(a).
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 71.3 authorize the interstate movement
of certain classes of livestock affected with particular diseases under
specific circumstances, while in Sec. 71.3(e), the Administrator is
authorized to grant exceptions in specific cases involving individual
animals being moved to a designated diagnostic or research facility.
Section 71.3 of the regulations does not provide a specific
exception from the general interstate movement prohibition for animals
affected with scrapie. However, the scrapie regulations in part 79 do
allow for the interstate movement of sheep and goats with scrapie
status designations under certain conditions. Since part 79 does
authorize the restricted movement of animals with scrapie status
designations, we would amend Sec. 71.3 of the regulations and add a
new paragraph (c)(5) that would stipulate that sheep and goats
designated, with regard to scrapie, as exposed, high-risk, suspect, or
scrapie-positive animals, as those terms are defined in part 79 of the
regulations, may be moved interstate in accordance with the regulations
in part 79.
Approval of Livestock Facilities
The regulations in Sec. 71.20(a) provide the standards and other
conditions that livestock facilities handling horses, cattle, bison, or
swine in interstate commerce must follow in order to be approved by us.
These standards and conditions are intended, in part, to ensure that
the facilities are constructed and operated in a manner that will
prevent the transmission of livestock diseases in interstate commerce.
Some of the standards and conditions provided in Sec. 71.20(a) apply
to all approved livestock facilities, while other standards and
conditions apply only to those facilities that handle specific classes
of livestock.
To be designated as an approved livestock facility, the facility
operator must execute a livestock facility agreement that indicates his
or her intention to comply with all applicable standards and conditions
provided in Sec. 71.20(a). The facility operator also must indicate,
by initialing the appropriate paragraphs of the agreement, the class or
classes of livestock that will be handled at the facility. Paragraph
(b) of Sec. 71.20 sets forth the basis and procedures for APHIS
withdrawing or denying approval of a livestock facility.
We would amend Sec. 71.20(a) to require that livestock facilities
handling sheep or goats in interstate commerce would now have to be
approved by APHIS. APHIS approval would be contingent on the facility
meeting certain standards and conditions, as provided in Sec.
71.20(a), that would relate to facility construction, maintenance, and
equipment, as well as other requirements relating to the receipt,
handling, and release of animals. Facility operators also would be
subject to certain identification and recordkeeping requirements
relating to sheep and goats handled at the facility.
In broadening the applicability of Sec. 71.20(a) to cover those
livestock facilities that handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce,
we would amend Sec. 71.20(a) to include those particular animal
health-status designations covering sheep and goats affected with
scrapie. We also would amend Sec. 71.20(a) by referencing the
applicability of the scrapie regulations in part 79, where appropriate.
Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 71.20 provides that State representatives
and APHIS representatives must be granted access to an approved
livestock facility during normal business hours to evaluate whether the
facility and its operations are in compliance with the livestock
facility agreement, as well as with other applicable provisions in 9
CFR parts 71, 75, 78, and 85. Part 75 contains additional restrictions
with regard to the interstate movement of horses, asses, ponies, mules,
and zebras with communicable diseases; part 78 contains additional
interstate movement restrictions for animals with brucellosis; and part
85 contains additional interstate movement restrictions for animals
with pseudorabies.
In broadening the scope of Sec. 71.20 to include the approval of
livestock facilities handling sheep and goats, we would amend Sec.
71.20(a)(3) by adding a reference to the scrapie regulations in part
79. With this change, livestock facilities approved to handle sheep or
goats under part 71 of the regulations also would be subject to the
requirements in part 79, which include movement restrictions,
identification and recordkeeping requirements, and other conditions
affecting the interstate movement of sheep and goats in order to
control the spread of scrapie.
Paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 71.20 provides that an APHIS
representative, a State representative, or an accredited veterinarian
shall be immediately notified of the presence at the facility of any
livestock that are known to be infected, exposed, or suspect, or that
show signs of possibly being infected, with any infectious, contagious,
or communicable disease. We are proposing to amend Sec. 71.20(a)(4) to
clarify the applicability of this provision to all animal health-status
designations involving scrapie. As discussed previously, sheep and
goats with scrapie disease classifications are classified as exposed,
high-risk, suspect, or scrapie-positive animals in accordance with part
79 of the regulations. The term scrapie-positive would be covered by
the term infectious. So, to cover classifications relating to scrapie,
we would amend Sec. 71.20(a)(4) by adding the scrapie status
designation ``high-risk.''
Paragraph (a)(5) of Sec. 71.20 provides that any reactor, suspect,
or exposed livestock shall be held in quarantined pens apart from all
other livestock at an approved livestock facility. We require the
separation of animals affected with communicable livestock diseases as
a further safeguard against the spread of such diseases. To emphasize
the applicability of the quarantine requirements in Sec. 71.20(a)(5)
to animals subject to scrapie, we would amend Sec. 71.20(a)(5) and add
references to ``high-risk'' and ``scrapie-positive'' alongside the
existing animal health-status designations of reactor, suspect, or
exposed livestock. We would qualify this change, however, by noting
that the quarantine requirements would not apply to those sheep or
goats designated as scrapie-exposed or high risk animals that will be
moved directly to slaughter in accordance with parts 71 and 79. We
would provide this exception since these particular slaughter animals
[[Page 52454]]
would pose a negligible risk for the spread of scrapie.
Paragraph (a)(6) of Sec. 71.20 provides that no reactor, suspect,
or exposed livestock, nor any livestock that show signs of being
infected with any infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, may
be sold at an approved livestock facility, except as authorized by an
APHIS representative, State representative, or an accredited
veterinarian. We would make a number of changes to this provision.
First, we would expand the coverage of Sec. 71.20(a)(6) to apply not
only to the sale of livestock, but also to any other situation in which
the animals are moved from the facility. To clarify the regulatory
basis for allowing the sale or movement of such animals, we would
provide that such sale or movement from the facility must be in
accordance with 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, 79, or 85. Referring to those
specific regulatory authorities would provide additional guidance as to
when affected animals could be sold or moved from the facility.
Finally, in order to broaden the applicability of Sec. 71.20(a)(6) to
cover livestock facilities with sheep or goats, we would add references
to the scrapie health-status designations ``high-risk'' and ``scrapie-
positive.'' This would mean that sheep and goats designated as suspect,
exposed, high-risk, or scrapie-positive animals could not be sold at or
moved from an approved livestock facility except in accordance with 9
CFR parts 71 and 79.
Paragraph (a)(7) of Sec. 71.20 provides that documents such as
weight tickets, sales slips, and records of origin, identification, and
destination that relate to livestock that are in, or that have been in,
the facility shall be maintained by the facility for a period of 2
years. APHIS representatives and State representatives must be
permitted to review and copy those documents during normal business
hours. We would amend Sec. 71.20(a)(7) to require that facilities must
maintain documents relating to sheep or goats for a period of 5 years.
These documents are used to trace a positive animal back to its flock
of origin, so the additional 3 years are necessary because the
incubation period for scrapie is between 2 and 5 years.
Paragraph (a)(8) of Sec. 71.20 provides that all livestock must be
officially identified in accordance with the applicable regulations in
9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, and 85 at the time of, or prior to, entry into
an approved livestock facility. As noted previously, parts 75, 78, and
85 include requirements not covered in the general provisions of part
71 of the regulations with regard to the interstate movement of
particular classes of livestock that are affected with certain
communicable livestock diseases. Identification and recordkeeping
requirements relating to the interstate movement of sheep and goats are
provided in part 79. Therefore, to enlarge the scope of part 71 to
cover approved livestock facilities handling sheep or goats, we would
amend Sec. 71.20(a)(8) by adding a reference to part 79 so that
operators of approved livestock facilities handling sheep or goats in
interstate commerce would be subject to the identification and
recordkeeping requirements found in part 79 of the regulations.
Paragraph (a)(11) of Sec. 71.20 provides that quarantined pens at
approved livestock facilities must be clearly labeled with paint or
placarded with the word ``Quarantined'' or the name of the disease of
concern, and must be cleaned and disinfected in accordance with the
regulations in part 71 before the pens may be used to hold livestock
that are not reactor, suspect, or exposed animals. In order for this
provision to be applicable to facilities handling sheep or goats
affected with scrapie, we would amend Sec. 71.20(a)(11) and insert
references to the animal health-status designations ``high-risk'' and
``scrapie-positive'' alongside the existing designations of reactor,
suspect, and exposed. In addition, because the regulations in 9 CFR
part 54, ``Control of Scrapie,'' contain specific cleaning and
disinfection procedures related to scrapie, we would also amend
paragraph (a)(11) so that it specifies that quarantined pens used to
hold animals affected with scrapie would have to be cleaned and
disinfected in accordance with 9 CFR 54.7(e)(2), which contains
specific procedures on the cleaning and disinfection of non-earth
surfaces of premises used to hold animals affected with scrapie.
Paragraph (a)(12) of Sec. 71.20 provides that quarantined pens
shall have adequate drainage, and the floors and those parts of the
walls of the quarantined pens with which reactor, or suspect, or
exposed livestock, or their excrement or discharges, may have contact
shall be constructed of materials that are substantially impervious to
moisture and able to withstand continued cleaning and disinfection.
Similar to changes proposed elsewhere in part 71 of the regulations, we
would amend Sec. 71.20(a)(12) by adding references to the animal
health-status designations of ``high-risk'' and ``scrapie-positive''
alongside the references to reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock in
order to cover sheep and goats affected with scrapie.
Paragraphs (a)(14) through (a)(16) of Sec. 71.20 provide
additional standards that operators of approved livestock facilities
must follow in order for their facility to handle particular classes of
livestock, i.e., cattle and bison, swine, and horses. We are proposing
to add a new paragraph (a)(17) that would list additional standards and
conditions that operators of approved livestock facilities handling
sheep or goats in interstate commerce would have to follow in order for
their facility to handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce. To add
this paragraph at Sec. 71.20(a)(17), we would redesignate existing
paragraphs (a)(17) through (a)(20) as paragraphs (a)(18) through
(a)(21).
Under proposed Sec. 71.20(a)(17), the facility operator would have
to indicate in the livestock facility agreement whether the facility
would be handling sheep or goats; and if so, whether those animals
would be breeding or slaughter animals. The operator also would have to
indicate in the agreement whether the facility would be receiving sheep
or goats classified as scrapie-positive, exposed, high-risk, or suspect
animals; and if so, whether those particular animals are breeding
animals or for slaughter only.
Under proposed Sec. 71.20(a)(17) of the regulations, operators of
livestock facilities handling sheep or goats in interstate commerce
also would have to adhere to the following operating practices:
The facility would have to receive, handle, and release
sheep and goats in accordance with parts 71 and 79 of the regulations;
The facility operator would have to officially identify
all sheep and goats handled at the facility, including whether the
animals are from consistent or inconsistent States, and maintain
relevant records pertaining to those animals in accordance with part 79
of the regulations;
Breeding and slaughter animals would have to remain
separated at all times while at the facility, so that no contact will
occur;
Any breeding sheep or goats that are designated, with
regard to scrapie, as exposed, high-risk, suspect, or scrapie-positive
animals, or any slaughter sheep or goats that are designated as
scrapie-positive or suspect animals, would have to be held in
quarantined pens while at the facility;
Any sheep or goats that are designated as scrapie-exposed
or high-risk animals could be consigned from the facility only in
accordance with part 79 of the regulations; and
Any sheep or goats that are designated as scrapie-positive
or suspect
[[Page 52455]]
animals would have to be reported immediately by the facility operator
to a State representative, an APHIS representative, or an accredited
veterinarian. Such animals could be released or consigned from the
facility only if accompanied by a permit issued by a State
representative, an APHIS representative, or an accredited veterinarian,
allowing movement of the animals to an approved disposal site or
research facility in accordance with parts 71 and 79 of the
regulations.
Miscellaneous Changes
We would make miscellaneous nonsubstantive changes in Sec. 71.1 to
the definitions of accredited veterinarian, area veterinarian in
charge, interstate commerce, State, State animal health official, and
State representative, to be consistent with how these terms appear
elsewhere in the regulations, as well as to be consistent with the
Government Printing Office Style Manual.
We also would amend Sec. 71.6(a) to include a specific reference
to goats among the listed animals subject to this provision on cleaning
and disinfecting of conveyances used in the interstate transportation
of affected with or infected with a livestock or poultry disease.
The proposed addition of paragraph (a)(17) to Sec. 71.20 would
require several nonsubstantive changes in Sec. 71.20 to include a
reference to that paragraph or to update references to other paragraphs
that would be redesignated as a result of the addition of paragraph
(a)(17). We also would amend Sec. 71.20(a)(18) to refer to part 79 in
addition to parts 71, 75, 78, and 85.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed 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.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule, which is set
out below. The economic analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis as
required by Executive Order 12866 and an analysis of the potential
economic effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We do not have enough data for a comprehensive analysis of the
economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for this proposed rule. We are inviting comments
about this proposed rule as it relates to small entities. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of
small entities who may incur benefits or costs from implementation of
this proposed rule and the economic effect of those benefits or costs.
Based on the information we have, there is no basis to conclude that
this rule will result in any significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301-8317), USDA
is authorized to conduct programs for the control of communicable
animal diseases and to regulate the interstate movement of animals that
may spread disease. The regulations are contained in 9 CFR chapter I,
subchapter C, parts 70 through 89. The regulations in part 71 (referred
to below as the regulations) contain general provisions covering the
interstate transportation of animals and animal products. The
regulations also set forth requirements that livestock facilities
handling certain classes of livestock in interstate commerce, including
cattle and bison, swine, and horses, must follow in order to be
designated by us as approved livestock facilities.
This proposed rule would establish a means for APHIS approval of
livestock facilities that handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce.
The conditions for approval would be based, in part, on recently
implemented regulations relating to the interstate movement of sheep
and goats in order to control the spread of scrapie.
To be designated as an approved livestock facility for handling
sheep or goats, the facility would have to enter into an agreement in
which it agrees to follow certain identification, recordkeeping, and
handling practices with respect to animals under its control in
accordance with 9 CFR parts 71 and 79. Any reactor, suspect, exposed,
scrapie high-risk, or scrapie-positive livestock would have to be held
in quarantined pens apart from all other livestock at the facility. The
quarantined pens holding such animals would have to be clearly marked,
and would have to be cleaned and disinfected before being used by other
animals not affected with disease. The quarantined pens also would have
to have proper drainage and be constructed of materials that are
substantially impervious to moisture and able to withstand continued
cleaning and disinfection.
To be approved, such facilities would have to provide access to
accredited veterinarians, State representatives, and APHIS
representatives, as well as comply with certain notification
requirements with respect to livestock known to be infected, exposed,
or suspect, or that show signs of being infected with a communicable
disease. Such facilities also would have to keep State animal health
officials and APHIS informed of upcoming sale days at the facility.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would strengthen scrapie
control programs on the national level, reduce the losses that scrapie
causes to the sheep and goat industries, and prevent the further spread
of scrapie. Proper handling and identification of animals that may be
infected with scrapie is essential for an effective scrapie eradication
program. States do not have uniform requirements for markets handling
sheep and goats in interstate commerce. Therefore, it is imperative
that a process for approving livestock facilities that handle sheep or
goats in interstate commerce be established to ensure that such
livestock facilities follow certain identification, recordkeeping, and
handling practices and procedures designed to prevent the spread of
scrapie and other communicable diseases.
The primary alternative to the proposed rule would be to make no
changes at all to the existing regulations. The regulations in part 79
already include certain requirements to be followed by approved
livestock markets with respect to the identification, recordkeeping,
and handling of sheep and goats in interstate commerce. However, the
regulations in part 71 do not specify the process by which these
facilities are to be approved. Therefore, it is imperative that an
approval process be added to our regulations.
We considered how we could consolidate or simplify the compliance
and reporting requirements contained in this proposal. We believe we
accomplish this objective by including the approval standards for sheep
and goat facilities in part 71 amongst the existing requirements for
approval of livestock facilities handling other classes of livestock.
In this way, many of the same requirements for approving sheep and goat
facilities would parallel those requirements for approving facilities
handling other classes of livestock.
Overview of U.S. Sheep and Goat Industry Operations, Inventory, and
Trade
As of January 1, 2004, there were 6.09 million sheep and lambs in
the United States, valued at approximately $721 million. This
represented a 3 percent decline from the level on January 1, 2003. The
above total of 6.09 million sheep and lambs consists of 4.48 million
[[Page 52456]]
breeding sheep and lambs and 1.61 million market sheep. There were
approximately 64,170 operations that produced sheep and lambs in 2002,
which is 1.5 percent less than the previous year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA/NASS, Sheep and Goats, January 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheep are produced in all parts of the United States, although
stock levels vary from State to State. Ten States (California,
Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and
Wyoming) account for nearly 69 percent of the total inventory, mostly
in the Mountain, North Central, and South Central States. The
northeastern and southeastern States have the smallest sheep
populations, accounting only for 5.2 percent of the total.
Table 1.--Sheep and Lambs: Farms and Inventory by Size, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of sheep
Number of Percent of farms Inventory of and lambs (based
Number of sheep/lambs per farm farms with (based on total sheep and on total
sheep/lambs number of farms) lambs inventory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 99................................... 58,909 91.8 1,820,910 29.9
100 to 499................................ 4,299 6.7 1,449,420 23.8
500 to 4,999.............................. 898 1.4 2,015,790 33.1
5,000 or more............................. 65 0.1 803,880 13.2
-----------------
Total................................. 64,170 100 6,090,000 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA/NASS, Sheep and Goats, January 2004.
About 92 percent of the producers had fewer than 100 animals each,
but these accounted only for about 30 percent of the total inventory of
sheep and lambs. On the other hand, large sheep operations with 5,000
sheep or more each represented less than 1 percent of the farms but
accounted for about 13 percent of the total inventory. The overall
average size of a flock was 95 animals in 2003; therefore, most sheep
operations would be classified as small entities with annual sales of
$750,000 or less. The average size of a flock on large operations of
5,000 sheep or more was 12,367 animals, while that of small operations
was 82 animals. Of the total number of operations, about 60 percent of
producers were full owners, about 32 percent were part owners, and 8
percent were tenants.
A total of about 5.65 million sheep and lambs were marketed in
2003. A little over 85 percent of these were lambs and the rest were
mature sheep. Marketing includes animals for slaughter market, younger
animals shipped to other States for feeding and breeding purposes, and
some exports. Approximately 81 percent of sheep and lambs are marketed,
involving the crossing of State lines in most cases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA/NASS, Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income:
2003 Summary, April 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 3.042 million sheep and lambs were slaughtered in 2003,
of which 95.2 percent were lambs.\3\ Most of the sheep and lambs
shipped for immediate slaughter would not be affected by this proposed
rule since they would not be handled by a livestock market or other
assembly point en route to the slaughter facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA/NASS, Livestock Slaughter: 2003 Summary, March 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997 (the latest year for which data are available for all
States), there were 57,925 goat operations in the United States, which
raised about 1.99 million goats, valued at approximately $74 million, a
decline of about 21 percent from the 1992 level. About 40.7 percent
were Angora goats, about 7.4 percent were milk goats, and about 52
percent were goats other than Angora or milk goats. The number of
Angora goats declined from about 1.8 million in 1992 to about 0.8
million in 1997, as many mohair producers shifted from producing Angora
goats to meat type goats because of the repeal of the Wool and Mohair
Act in October 1993. The State of Texas accounted for about 64.3
percent of the goat inventory. Other important goat-raising States are
Arizona, California, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
Tennessee. These States together represented another 14.2 percent of
the U.S. goat holdings. Goat holdings vary in size and degree of
commercialization, with many producers relying on other sources of
income. With an average holding of about 35 goats, most, if not all,
goat operations are relatively small, and would be classified as small
entities with annual sales of $750,000 or less.
There are currently about 1,300 livestock facilities that handle
cattle and calves, swine, or sheep and goats moving in interstate
commerce. Of this total, about 126 handle sheep or goats.
The United States produced about 204 million pounds of lamb and
mutton in 2003, a decline of about 8 percent from the previous year.
Imports of lamb and mutton increased from 162.8 million pounds in 2002
to 170.9 million pounds in 2003, an increase of about 5 percent.
An increasing proportion of domestic demand for lamb and mutton is
met by imports. The share of imports in domestic consumption of lamb
and mutton increased from about 11 percent in 1991 to about 46.5
percent in 2003. Even with such increased imports both total
consumption as well as per capita consumption of lamb declined. Total
consumption declined from about 396 million pounds to 367.5 million
pounds, a decline of about 7.2 percent. Per capita consumption (based
on carcass weight equivalent) of lamb and mutton slightly declined from
1.6 pounds per person in 1991 to 1.1 pounds per person in 2002. This
decline in sheep meat consumption is not unique to the United States
but is a worldwide phenomenon.
The United States has a limited foreign trade both in live sheep
and goats and their products. Both the sources of imports and
destinations of exports are concentrated in a few countries. During
calendar year 2003, the United States exported 172,726 head of sheep
valued at $10.273 million (see table 2). Most exports were to Mexico
(170,595 head). Other sheep markets were Ecuador (878 head), Trinidad
and Tobago (463 head), Dominican Republic (277 head), Canada (257
head), Netherlands (233 head), Venezuela (15 head) and Japan (8 head).
The United States also exported 29,579 goats valued at $1.615 million
in 2003. The primary importers were Mexico (25,202 head), China (4,112
head), Canada (133 head), Netherlands (81 head), and Jamaica (33 head)
in 2003. Other destinations included Grenada (6 head), Philippines (6
head), and Japan (6 head).
[[Page 52457]]
Table 2.--Sheep and Goats: Imports and Exports, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Value of imports Number of Value of exports
Item imports (in millions) exports (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheep..................................... 67,778 $7.106 172,726 $10.273
Goats..................................... 7,453 0.578 29,579 1.615
-----------------
Total................................. 75,231 7.684 202,305 11.888
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Trade Atlas, Global Trade Information Services, Inc., U.S. Edition, March 2004.
In 2003, the United States imported 67,778 sheep valued at $7.106
million. All sheep imports in 2003 were from Canada (67,766 head) and
Australia (12 head). Additionally, the United States imported 7,453
goats valued at $0.578 million in 2003, of which 5,967 were from Canada
and 1,486 were from Australia. In 2003, the United States imported
170.9 million pounds of sheep and goat meat, valued at $353 million and
exported 7.4 million pounds of sheep and goat meat valued at $7.9
million. Most lamb and mutton imports came from Australia and New
Zealand.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
This proposed rule, if implemented, could result in additional
administrative burdens and costs for livestock facilities handling
sheep or goats in interstate commerce in order to qualify for and
maintain their status as approved livestock facilities.
There are currently 126 facilities that handle sheep and goats
moving in interstate commerce. These facilities would have to provide
access to accredited veterinarians, State representatives, and APHIS
representatives, as well as comply with certain notification
requirements with respect to livestock known to be infected, exposed,
or suspect, or that show signs of being infected with a communicable
disease. Such facilities also would have to keep State animal health
officials and APHIS informed of upcoming sale days at the facility.
Some of the livestock facilities covered by this rule, if implemented,
are already subject to these requirements as approved livestock
facilities handling other classes of livestock.
To be approved, such livestock facilities also would have to follow
certain identification, recordkeeping, and handling practices with
respect to sheep or goats under their control as provided in 9 CFR
parts 71 and 79. Documents such as weight tickets, sales slips, and
records of origin, identification, and destination relating to
livestock at the facility would have to be maintained by the facility
for a period of 5 years. Some of these requirements are already
provided for elsewhere in the regulations, and thus would not represent
a new burden. However, any new paperwork and administrative burdens may
result in additional costs to facility operators who find it necessary
to adjust their operations to meet the new requirements. We do not
expect that this will be a significant issue for most facilities.
The livestock facility and equipment would have to be maintained in
a state of good repair. Chutes, pens, alleys, and sales rings would
have to be well-constructed and well-lighted for the inspection,
identification, vaccination, testing and branding of livestock.
Electrical outlets would have to be provided at the chute area for
branding purposes. The facility, including all yards, docks, pens,
alleys, sale rings, chutes, scales, means of conveyance and their
associated equipment would have to be maintained in a clean and
sanitary condition. The operator of the facility would be responsible
for maintaining an adequate supply of disinfectant and serviceable
equipment for cleaning and disinfection. Meeting these standards could
entail additional costs for some livestock facilities seeking to
qualify as approved livestock facilities. However, we do not expect
this to be a significant issue as a number of these conditions
represent good business practices that most facilities already follow.
In addition, some of these facilities would already be complying with
these conditions as approved livestock facilities handling other
classes of livestock. So the additional changes in this proposed rule
should not have a significant effect on facilities conducting their
businesses.
In addition, as a condition of approval, reactor, suspect, exposed,
scrapie high-risk, or scrapie-positive livestock would have to be held
in quarantined pens apart from all other livestock at the facility. The
quarantined pens in which such animals are held would have to be
clearly marked and would have to be cleaned and disinfected before
being used to hold other animals not affected with diseases. The
quarantined pens also would have to have proper drainage and be
constructed of materials that are substantially impervious to moisture
and able to withstand continued cleaning and disinfection. The
regulations in Sec. 71.20(a)(5) already require that approved
livestock facilities hold any reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock in
quarantined pens apart from all other livestock at the facility;
facilities handling sheep or goats that do not have quarantined pens
would likely incur a one time capital investment of about $3,000 to
$5,000 to install such a pen. Otherwise, we expect that the number of
reactor, suspect, exposed, scrapie high-risk, or scrapie-positive
livestock handled by approved livestock facilities to be very small,
and thus quarantining of such animals should not have a significant
effect on facility operations or economic activity.
Producers who are engaged in intrastate and interstate marketing
also may pay higher consignment fees as approved livestock facilities
pass their increased costs of providing services to affected producers.
Other costs to producers of this proposed action could result for those
animals requiring special handling at approved livestock facilities.
This proposal, if implemented, could result in a small increase in
the time that APHIS and State representatives would spend monitoring
livestock facilities. In those cases where a facility is already
operating as approved livestock facility for other classifications of
livestock, and APHIS or State representatives (as opposed to an
accredited veterinarian) are already on site, the addition of sheep and
goats to the classifications of livestock covered by the agreement is
unlikely to substantially increase the workload for those
representatives. In those cases where a facility handling sheep and
goats is not already an approved livestock facility, APHIS or State
representatives are also present in order to monitor compliance with
the identification requirements of the scrapie regulations in part 79.
Thus, we believe that any additional monitoring responsibilities on the
part of State or Federal representatives that may result
[[Page 52458]]
from implementation of this proposed rule could be handled by existing
staff.
In spite of the potential burdens to facility operators and
producers, we believe that the long-term avoided costs of coping with
losses associated with scrapie by the U.S. sheep and goat industry far
exceed the potential costs of this proposed rule. This includes the
avoidance of those veterinary and associated costs for managing
scrapie-affected flocks. A recent agency estimate showed that scrapie
costs the U.S. sheep industry about $24 million per year in direct
losses. This includes an estimated $10 million in lost breeding stock
and embryo sales, $10.5 million in disposal costs for offal, and $2.8
million in lost meat sales and of bone meal sales from non-federally
inspected plants.
Accelerating the eradication of scrapie in the United States also
could facilitate the U.S. sheep and goat industry to once again become
competitive both in the domestic and global market, particularly in the
export of live sheep and goats. Currently, producers in countries such
as Australia and New Zealand have a competitive advantage over U.S.
producers, based in part on the absence of scrapie in those countries.
The achievement of ``scrapie-free'' status in the United States could
neutralize the competitive advantage of such countries.
Since both actual product quality as well as purchaser's perception
of quality contribute to continued market acceptance, efforts to
eradicate scrapie and secure the health of U.S. sheep and goats will
continue to serve the economic interests of the industry and the
Nation.
This proposed rule should not affect the interstate flow of sheep
and goats. The interstate movement of sheep and goats is important as
it reduces interstate price differences faced by consumers of livestock
products and it allows movement of sheep and goats from areas of
surplus to areas of deficit. A majority of sheep and goats moving
across State lines are slaughter animals. Although we do not have
specific data, based on our observation of livestock markets and the
sheep and goat industry, we believe that most of these slaughter
animals move directly to the slaughterhouse and bypass the types of
livestock facilities that are the subject of this proposed rule. In
addition, the operators of livestock facilities that agree to handle
animals affected by scrapie would be most impacted under this proposed
rule. However, the number of sheep or goats affected by scrapie and
handled by these livestock facilities is likely to be very small. So
this proposed rule should not pose a significant burden on operators of
livestock facilities or producers so as to reduce interstate commerce
or retard economic activity.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Agencies are required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to evaluate the potential economic effects of
proposed rules on small entities. We do not have enough information to
fully evaluate the potential effect of this proposed rule on small
entities. As such, we are inviting comments addressing this issue. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kinds of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from implementation of
this proposed rule, and if there are any special issues relating to the
business practices of these small entities that would make them
particularly different from larger firms in their ability to comply
with this proposed rule. We also are interested whether any other costs
may result from implementation of this proposed rule that are not
discussed in this analysis. Based on what information we have, we have
made some initial conclusions.
The changes in this proposed rule would directly affect livestock
facilities that handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce. This
would include stockyards, livestock markets, buying stations,
concentration points, or any other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where sheep or goats have been assembled.
Producers of sheep or goats also could be affected by the proposed rule
if livestock facilities pass their increased costs of providing
services to affected producers.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines
for determining which types of firms are to be considered small under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Facilities that handle livestock such
as stockyards, livestock markets, buying stations, concentration
points, or any other premises under State or Federal veterinary
supervision where livestock are assembled are considered small if they
have 100 or fewer employees. There are currently about 1,300 livestock
facilities that handle cattle and calves, swine, or sheep and goats
moving in interstate commerce. Of this total, about 126 handle sheep or
goats. Of those livestock facilities that handle sheep and goats, only
1 facility may be considered to be large and all other facilities are
small entities of 100 employees or less.
Livestock facilities that are considered small entities would have
to meet the same standards as other larger firms. This would include
following certain identification, recordkeeping, and handling practices
with respect to sheep or goats. Some of these requirements are already
provided in part 79 of the regulations, and thus would not represent a
new burden. In addition, a certain number of these facilities already
comply with many of the conditions in this proposed rule in operating
as approved livestock facilities for other classes of livestock.
We considered the feasibility of exempting small entities from some
or all of the requirements in this proposed rule or establishing
differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account
the resources available to small entities. However, one of the aims of
an effective national program to control and eradicate scrapie is to
establish uniform standards that will be followed by all livestock
facilities handling sheep or goats in interstate commerce. Programs
relating to disease surveillance and control do not lend themselves to
different compliance standards based on the size of the entity subject
to regulation. Also, the requirements in part 79 pertaining to
identification, recordkeeping, and handling of sheep and goats make no
distinction as to the size of producer or other livestock facility
handling the animals.
As discussed above, producers who are engaged in intrastate and
interstate marketing may be indirectly affected by this proposed rule
if they have to pay higher consignment fees as livestock facilities
pass their increased costs of providing services. Other costs to
producers of this proposed action could result for those animals
requiring special handling at approved livestock facilities. An
establishment engaged in sheep or goat production is considered small
if it has annual sales of less than $750,000. As discussed previously,
the vast majority of sheep and goat producers would be considered small
entities based on such criteria. Based on our initial analysis, the
potential costs to sheep and goat producers considered small entities
should not be significant.
In sum, it is reasonable to expect that both small and large
entities would benefit from this proposed rule, which would strengthen
scrapie control programs resulting in long-term avoided costs of coping
with market losses associated with scrapie to the U.S. sheep and goat
industry, currently estimated as high as $24 million per year in direct
losses to the U.S. sheep industry alone. We expect any costs to
operators of livestock facilities or to producers to be more than
offset by the added benefits to the industry at large
[[Page 52459]]
in providing a more effective scrapie eradication program.
This proposed rule would entail information collection
requirements. These requirements are described in this document under
the heading ``Paperwork Reduction Act.''
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 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 will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed
rule. The assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service approval of livestock facilities
that handle sheep or goats in interstate commerce under the conditions
specified in this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
The environmental assessment was prepared in accordance with: (1)
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part
1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Copies of the environmental assessment are available for public
inspection in our reading room (information on the location and hours
of the reading room is provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this docket). In addition, copies may be obtained by
writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 00-094-1.
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 00-094-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River
Road Unit 118, 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.
We are proposing that livestock facilities that handle sheep or
goats in interstate commerce would have to meet certain standards and
follow certain operating practices in order to be approved by us.
Complying with the proposed standards and other conditions described in
this proposed rule would necessitate the use of several information
collection activities, including (1) executing a livestock facility
agreement that provides the conditions under which the facility must
operate in order to be approved by us, (2) notifying an APHIS or State
representative or accredited veterinarian concerning the presence of
any sick animal at the facility, (3) completing an application for
permit in order for the facility to release certain sheep and goats
affected with scrapie, and (4) maintaining records relating to the
identity of sheep handled at the facility. We note that much of the
information that would be requested under the proposed rule is already
being recorded by livestock facility owners/operators as part of their
routine business practices. In addition, much of the information
requested is currently required by our regulations in 9 CFR parts 54,
71, and 79, and is thus already being provided by many of the
respondents who would be affected by the proposed regulations.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection 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: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.5068226 hours per response.
Respondents: Owners/operators of certain livestock facilities that
handle sheep or goats moving interstate, accredited veterinarians, and
State animal health authorities.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 1,026.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated annual number of responses: 1,026.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 520 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.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
734-7477.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 71
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 71 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
[[Page 52460]]
2. Section 71.1 would be amended by revising the definitions of
Accredited Veterinarian, Area Veterinarian in Charge, interstate
commerce, livestock, State, State animal health official, State
representative and by adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions
for consistent States and inconsistent States, to read as follows:
Sec. 71.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Accredited veterinarian. A veterinarian who is approved by the
Administrator, in accordance with part 161 of this chapter, to perform
official animal health work of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service specified in subchapters A, B, C, and D of this chapter; and to
perform work required by cooperative State-Federal disease control and
eradication programs.
* * * * *
Area veterinarian in charge. The veterinary official of APHIS who
is assigned by the Administrator to supervise and perform the official
animal health work of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in
the State concerned.
* * * * *
Consistent States. Those States listed as consistent States in
Sec. 79.1 of this subchapter because they meet certain standards, as
provided in Sec. 79.6 of this subchapter, for conducting an active
State scrapie program involving the identification of scrapie in sheep
and goats for the purpose of controlling the spread of scrapie.
* * * * *
Inconsistent States. Those States not included in the list of
consistent States appearing in Sec. 79.1 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
Interstate commerce. Trade, traffic, transportation, or other
commerce between a place in a State and any place outside of that
State, or between points within a State but through any place outside
of that State.
* * * * *
Livestock. Horses, cattle, bison, cervids, camelids, sheep, goats,
and swine.
* * * * *
State. Any of the 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia,
and any territories and possessions of the United States.
State animal health official. The State official responsible for
livestock and poultry disease control and eradication programs.
State representative. An individual employed in animal health work
by a State or a political subdivision thereof and authorized by such
State or political subdivision to perform the function involved.
* * * * *
3. Section 71.3 would be amended by adding a new paragraph (c)(5)
to read as follows:
Sec. 71.3 Interstate movement of diseased animals and poultry
generally prohibited.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Sheep or goats designated, with regard to scrapie, as exposed
animals, high-risk animals, suspect animals, or scrapie-positive
animals, as those terms are defined in part 79 of this chapter, may be
moved interstate only in accordance with part 79 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 71.6 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 71.6, paragraph (a), the first sentence would be
amended by adding the word ``goats,'' immediately after the word
``sheep,''.
Sec. 71.19 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 71.19, paragraph (d), the introductory text would be
amended by removing the words ``Area Veterinarian in Charge'' and
adding the words ``area veterinarian in charge'' in their place.
6. Section Sec. 71.20 would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(3), by adding the number ``79,'' immediately
after the number ``78,''.
b. In paragraph (a)(4), by adding the words ``high-risk''
immediately after the word ``exposed,''.
c. By revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(11) to
read as set forth below.
d. In paragraph (a)(8), by adding the number ``79,'' immediately
after the number ``78,''.
e. In paragraph (a)(12), by removing the words ``or suspect, or
exposed'' and adding in their place the words ``suspect, exposed, high-
risk, or scrapie-positive''.
f. By redesignating paragraphs (a)(17) through (a)(20) as
paragraphs (a)(18) through (a)(21), respectively, and adding a new
paragraph (a)(17) before the undesignated center heading ``Approvals''
to read as set forth below.
g. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (a)(18) to read as set
forth below.
Sec. 71.20 Approval of livestock facilities.
* * * * *
(5) Any reactor, suspect, exposed, high-risk, or scrapie-positive
livestock shall be held in quarantined pens apart from all other
livestock at the facility. This requirement shall not apply to sheep or
goats designated under 9 CFR part 79 as exposed or high-risk animals
that will be moved directly to slaughter in accordance with 9 CFR parts
71 and 79.
(6) No reactor, suspect, exposed, high-risk, or scrapie-positive
livestock, nor any livestock that show signs of being infected with any
infectious, contagious, or communicable disease, may be sold at or
moved from the facility, except in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71, 75,
78, 79, and 85.
Records
(7) Documents such as weight tickets, sales slips, and records of
origin, identification, and destination that relate to livestock that
are in, or that have been in, the facility shall be maintained by the
facility for a period of 2 years, or for a period of 5 years in the
case of sheep or goats. APHIS representatives and State representatives
shall be permitted to review and copy those documents during normal
business hours.
* * * * *
(11) Quarantined pens shall be clearly labeled with paint or
placarded with the word ``Quarantined'' or the name of the disease of
concern, and shall be cleaned and disinfected in accordance with 9 CFR
part 71, as well as 9 CFR 54.7(e)(2) if the disease of concern is
scrapie, before being used to pen livestock that are not reactor,
suspect, exposed, high-risk, or scrapie-positive animals.
* * * * *
(17) Sheep and goats:
--This facility will handle breeding sheep or goats: [Initials of
operator, date]
--This facility will handle slaughter sheep or goats: [Initials of
operator, date]
--This facility will handle scrapie-exposed or high-risk sheep or
goats: [Initials of operator, date]
--This facility will handle scrapie-exposed or high-risk sheep or goats
for slaughter only: [Initials of operator, date]
--This facility will not handle scrapie-exposed, high-risk, suspect, or
scrapie-positive sheep or goats, nor permit such animals to enter the
facility: [Initials of operator, date]
(i) All sheep and goats must be received, handled, and released by
the facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71 and 79.
(ii) All sheep and goats at the facility must be officially
identified and relevant records relating to those
[[Page 52461]]
identified animals must be maintained by the facility operator, as
required under 9 CFR part 79.
(iii) The identity of sheep and goats from consistent States and
inconsistent States must be maintained by the facility operator.
(iv) Breeding and slaughter animals must be separated at all times
so that no contact will occur.
(v) Any breeding sheep or goats that are designated, with regard to
scrapie, as exposed, high risk, suspect, or scrapie-positive animals,
or any slaughter sheep or goats that are designated as scrapie-positive
or suspect animals, must be held in quarantined pens while at the
facility.
(vi) Any sheep or goats that are designated as scrapie-exposed or
high-risk animals must be consigned from the facility only in
accordance with 9 CFR part 79.
(vii) Any sheep or goats that are designated as scrapie-positive or
suspect animals must be reported immediately by the facility operator
to a State representative, an APHIS representative, or an accredited
veterinarian. Such animals may be released or consigned from the
facility only if accompanied by a permit issued by a State, an APHIS
representative, or an accredited veterinarian, allowing movement of the
animals to an approved disposal site or research facility in accordance
with 9 CFR parts 71 and 79.
Approvals
(18) Request for approval:
I hereby request approval for this facility to operate as an
approved livestock facility for the classes of livestock indicated in
paragraphs (14) through (17) of this agreement. I acknowledge that I
have received a copy of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, 79, and 85, and
acknowledge that I have been informed and understand that failure to
abide by the provisions of this agreement and the applicable provisions
of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, 79, and 85 constitutes a basis for the
withdrawal of this approval. [Printed name and signature of operator,
date of signature]
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of August, 2004.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-19516 Filed 8-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P