[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40064-40066]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-3]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0147]
RIN 0579Z-AC26
Cattle for Export; Removal of Certain Testing Requirements
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the livestock exportation regulations to
eliminate the requirement for pre-export tuberculosis and brucellosis
testing of certain cattle being exported to countries that do not
require such testing. This action will facilitate the exportation of
certain cattle by eliminating the need to conduct pre-export
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing when the receiving country does
not require such testing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Antonio Ramirez, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301) 734-8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, ``Inspection and Handling of
Livestock for Exportation'' (referred to below as the regulations),
prescribe conditions for exporting animals from the United States.
Section 91.5 requires, among other things, that cattle intended for
exportation be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to export.
On January 10, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR
1192-1195, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0147) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations by eliminating the requirement for pre-export tuberculosis
and brucellosis testing of certain cattle being exported to countries
that do not require such testing. Under its Restricted Feeder Cattle
Program, Canada allows the importation of certain U.S. cattle without
testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis, but our regulations required
that these cattle be tested for these diseases. Thus, the proposal was
intended both to relieve restrictions on U.S. cattle that are exported
to Canada under this program and to ensure that, if other countries
receiving exports of U.S. cattle suspend or remove their requirements
that U.S. cattle be tested for tuberculosis or brucellosis, U.S.
exporters of cattle would receive the full benefits of no longer being
required to perform such tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0147
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
March 12, 2007. We received 8 comments by that date. They were from
producers, exporters, and other private citizens. Two of the comments
were entirely supportive. The remaining comments are discussed below.
One commenter stated that it is the United States' responsibility
to protect the health and welfare of the people of foreign nations and
that testing cattle exported from the United States would help to
accomplish this goal.
We proposed to remove the testing requirement for exported cattle
only when testing is not required by the receiving country. Thus, a
country receiving U.S. cattle would have to determine that waiving any
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing requirements for U.S. cattle would
not be detrimental to its citizens' health and welfare before we would
allow any cattle to be exported to that country without testing.
One commenter opposed the proposal on the grounds that the existing
exemptions to the testing requirements in the regulations are adequate.
As we discussed in the proposed rule, we do not believe that the
current exemptions are adequate. For example, cattle exported to Canada
under the Restricted Feeder Cattle Program are still required under our
regulations to be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis, even though
Canada does not require such testing. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 91.3
states that the Administrator may, upon request of the appropriate
animal health official of the country of destination, waive the
tuberculosis and brucellosis tests referred to in Sec. Sec. 91.5(a)
and (b) of the regulations when he finds such tests are not necessary
to prevent the exportation of diseased animals from the United States.
However, this provision does not allow us to relieve the testing
requirement for cattle exported under the Restricted Feeder Cattle
Program, as Canadian animal health officials would have to request each
time cattle are exported that the brucellosis and tuberculosis tests
not be administered. A more general exemption from the testing
requirement is necessary to cover all situations in which U.S. cattle
may be exported to countries that do not require them to be tested for
tuberculosis or brucellosis.
One commenter stated that the testing of cattle at export for
tuberculosis and brucellosis is done only to increase agricultural
profits. This commenter also stated that no cattle should be exported.
APHIS tests cattle upon export to help prevent the spread of
disease and to facilitate exports in accordance with our
responsibilities under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301
et seq.). We have no statutory authority to regulate the movement of
livestock except as it relates to preventing the introduction or spread
of animal diseases.
One commenter asked that we relieve testing restrictions for cattle
exported to Mexico as well.
The testing requirement will be relived for exports of cattle to
any country that does not require testing of cattle for tuberculosis
and brucellosis when they are exported from the United States.
Negotiations with other countries to establish export agreements under
which testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis is not required will be
conducted separately. Once we have
[[Page 40065]]
established such an agreement with a country, however, any cattle
exported from the United States in compliance with such an agreement
could be exported without testing for one or both of these diseases,
depending on the terms of the agreement.
Two commenters asked that we relieve the testing requirements for
additional types of exported animals when testing is not required by
the receiving country. One commenter requested that we apply the
exemption to goats and swine, noting that these animals typically have
lower per-head values than cattle, which would mean that the positive
economic impact associated with exempting those animals from testing
would be even greater for producers and exporters of those animals.
Another commenter asked that testing requirements be relieved for sheep
as well.
We agree that it would be desirable to relieve the testing
restrictions for additional types of animals, where possible. However,
removing the testing requirements for other species involves different
risks that would need to be considered separately. We will continue to
look for opportunities to further relieve testing requirements and, if
removing testing requirements for other animals is warranted, we will
issue a separate proposal to do so.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without
change.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This final rule removes the requirement that cattle destined for
export must be tested for brucellosis and tuberculosis prior to export
in any case in which such testing is not required by the receiving
country for cattle originating in the United States or any State
therein.
The rule will affect domestic producers of cattle, specifically
those engaged in the export of animals. In 2005, there were 982,510
cattle operations in the United States.\2\ On January 1, 2005, domestic
inventory of cattle and calves totaled over 95.8 million, with an
average per head value of $916, and a total value of production of over
$87.8 billion.\3\ Under U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) size
standards, operations engaged in cattle ranching or production (both
beef and dairy) are considered small if they earn $750,000 or less in
annual receipts.\4\ According to the USDA's National Agricultural
Statistics Service, approximately 953,390, or 97 percent, of the
982,510 cattle operations in the United States are holding fewer than
500 head of cattle. As such, we would assume that the overwhelming
majority of domestic cattle operations would be considered small by SBA
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA-NASS, Quick Stats U.S. & All States Data. Washington,
DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2006.
\3\ USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics 2005.
\4\ Table of Size Standards based on North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 2002. Beef Cattle Ranching and
Farming: NAICS code 112111, Dairy Cattle and Milk Production: NAICS
code 112120. Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration,
effective January 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those operations engaged in the export of their animals will
be affected by this rule. In 2005, the United States exported 21,155
live cattle, with a total value of over $7.2 million. Our primary
trading partners historically are Canada and Mexico, and in 2005 Canada
and Mexico ranked first and second, respectively, as destinations of
U.S. live cattle exports by value.\5\ In response to strong domestic
cattle price and trade barriers related to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy and other diseases, U.S. cattle exports declined
significantly in 2003-2004, but they are now on the rebound. The number
of operations engaged in the export of cattle is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USDA-FAS, U.S. Trade Exports-FATUS Commodity Aggregations.
Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service. Based on data from the
Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, domestic cattle producers wishing to export their
animals will no longer be required to test for tuberculosis and
brucellosis prior to export when the importing countries do not require
such testing. As such, the rule represents a reduction in compliance
costs currently associated with export requirements for live cattle.
APHIS estimates the average cost of tuberculosis testing for cattle
ranges from $10 to $12 per head. In addition, APHIS estimates the cost
of an official herd blood test for brucellosis to be $3 per animal. If
a producer located in a State that is accredited-free for tuberculosis
and Class Free for brucellosis exports cattle to a country where pre-
export testing requirements have been removed, the cost savings that
the producer will capture as a result of the change to the regulations
will depend on the number of animals exported. Again, the exact number
of domestic producers whose operations depend on the export of cattle
is unknown. However, given the average per-head value of $916, the cost
saved by not having to test for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to
export is not expected to be economically significant, as the combined
cost of the tests represents a small percentage of the per-head value
of the cattle.
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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91
Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 91 as follows:
PART 91--INSPECTION AND HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR EXPORTATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 19 U.S.C. 1644a(c); 21 U.S.C.
136, 136a, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.4.
0
2. In Sec. 91.1, the definition of official brucellosis vaccinate is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 91.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Official brucellosis vaccinate. An official adult vaccinate or an
official
[[Page 40066]]
calfhood vaccinate as defined in Sec. 78.1 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 91.5 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the word ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (a)(1)(i); by removing the citation ``9 CFR 77.1'' in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and adding the citation ``Sec. 77.7 of this
chapter'' in its place; by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) and adding a semicolon in its place; and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) to read as set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the word ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (b)(1)(iv), by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(b)(1)(v) and adding a semicolon in its place, and by adding new
paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1)(vii) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 91.5 Cattle.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Cattle exported to a country that does not require cattle
from the United States to be tested for tuberculosis as described in
this part; or
(iv) Cattle exported from a State designated as an Accredited-free
State in Sec. 77.7 of this chapter to a country that does not require
cattle from Accredited-free States to be tested for tuberculosis as
described in this part.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Cattle exported to a country that does not require cattle from
the United States to be tested for brucellosis as described in this
part; or
(vii) Cattle exported from a State designated as a Class Free State
in Sec. 78.41 of this chapter to a country that does not require
cattle from Class Free States to be tested for brucellosis as described
in this part.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-14177 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P