# Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-31114

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** January 9, 2013
- **Citation:** 78 FR 2040

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 86
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091]
RIN 0579-AD24
Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate

AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending the regulations to establish minimum national official identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of livestock moving interstate. Under this rulemaking, unless specifically exempted, livestock belonging to species covered by the regulations that are moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or other documentation. These regulations specify approved forms of official identification for each species but allow the livestock covered under this rulemaking to be moved interstate with another form of identification, as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes. The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

DATES:

Effective Date:
March 11, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

a. Need for the Regulatory Action

Preventing and controlling animal disease is the cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods, there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from disease. To support their efforts, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has promulgated regulations to prevent, control, and eradicate disease. Traceability does not prevent disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they have been, and when, is indispensable in emergency response and in ongoing disease control and eradication programs.

We have clear indications that higher levels of official identification enhance tracing capability. For example, through the National Scrapie Eradication Program, 92 percent of the cull breeding sheep are officially identified at slaughter, primarily using flock identification eartags. This level of official identification made it possible in fiscal year 2010 to achieve traceback from slaughter of scrapie-positive sheep to the flock of origin or birth as part of the scrapie surveillance program 96 percent of the time, typically in a matter of minutes. Other diseases, particularly contagious ones, require that we trace to more than the birth premises, i.e., to other premises where the animal has been after leaving the birth premises but before going to slaughter, so the scrapie model is not a complete solution for such diseases.

APHIS believes that we must improve our tracing capabilities now not only to address current concerns, including the increasing number of cases of bovine tuberculosis, but also to ensure that we are well prepared to respond to new or foreign animal diseases in the future.

On August 11, 2011, we published in the
Federal Register
(76 FR 50082-50110, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091) a proposal
1

to amend the regulations by establishing minimum national official identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of livestock moving interstate. Under the proposed regulations, unless specifically exempted, livestock belonging to species covered by the rulemaking that are moved interstate would have to be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) or comparable appropriate documentation. The proposed rule specified approved forms of official identification for each species but allowed the livestock covered under the rulemaking to be moved interstate with another form of identification, as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes. The purpose of the proposed rule was to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

1
To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091
.

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action

Under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301
et seq.
), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to issue orders and promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction into the United States and the dissemination within the United States of any pest or disease of livestock. APHIS' regulations in 9 CFR subchapter B govern cooperative programs to control and eradicate communicable diseases of livestock. The regulations in 9 CFR subchapter C establish requirements for the interstate movement of livestock to prevent the dissemination of diseases of livestock within the United States.

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

a. New or Revised Provisions

This section provides a brief summary of the more significant changes we are making to this final rule in response to comments on the August 2011 proposed rule. Both the comments and the changes will be discussed in greater detail later in this document. The changes are listed below in the order they are discussed later in this document.

• We are extending the phase-out period for manufacturer-coded AINs from 12 months to 24 months to make the transition less burdensome for producers.

• We are revising the definition of
official eartag
and adding a new definition of
official eartag shield.
These changes will allow the use of State or Tribal postal abbreviation or codes within the U.S. Route Shield in lieu of “U.S.”

• We are revising the language of the exemption from the traceability requirements for animals moved interstate to custom slaughter to indicate clearly that the exemption applies to all interstate movement to a custom slaughter facility. The proposed rule contained language that implied that the meat must be consumed by the person moving the animal to custom slaughter. This was not the intent of the proposed rule. A significant number of backyard poultry growers commented and expressed concerns about the official identification requirement for movement of poultry to a custom slaughter facility.

• We are reducing the requirement for the maintenance of interstate movement records for poultry and swine from 5 years to 2 because, as noted by numerous commenters representing those industries, poultry and swine have shorter lifespans than do the other livestock species covered by this rulemaking. The requirement will

remain 5 years for cattle and bison, sheep and goats, cervids, and equines.

• In addition to eartags, in this final rule, we are recognizing brands, when accompanied by an official brand inspection certificate as means of official identification for cattle when the shipping and receiving States or Tribes are in agreement. We are making this change in response to the many comments we received on this issue advocating that we retain brands as a means of official identification for cattle. Additionally, we are allowing similar provisions for tattoos and breed registry certificates.

• In response to many commenters from the cattle industry, we will make feeder cattle (cattle under 18 months of age) subject to our official identification requirements in a separate rulemaking rather than in this one.

• We will continue to allow backtags to be used in lieu of official identification on direct-to-slaughter cattle rather than eventually requiring official identification, as we had originally proposed to do. We are stipulating, however, that for backtags to be used on such animals, the animals will have to be slaughtered within 3 days of their movement to the slaughter plant.

• We are no longer requiring that cattle and bison moved interstate to an approved tagging site be officially identified at the site prior to commingling with cattle or bison from other premises. Under this final rule, commingling can occur prior to official identification provided that other practices are used that will ensure that the identity of the animal's consignor is accurately maintained until the animal is tagged with an official eartag. We are making this change in response to numerous comments expressing concerns that operations at approved tagging sites could be slowed during busy periods.

• We are clarifying the circumstances under which multiple official identification methods, including official eartags, may be used on the same animal.

• We are exempting poultry growers that are not participating in the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) and that receive chicks from a hatchery or redistributor from the official identification requirements, with the stipulation that the producers maintain certain records, e.g., of the supplier of the birds. Many backyard poultry growers noted that group/lot identification of these birds was not applicable and that individual identification of these chicks was impractical.

• We are allowing the use of other interstate movement documentation, in lieu of an ICVI, as agreed to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes, for cattle and bison of all ages. The proposed rule only allowed such an exemption for cattle and bison under 18 month of age.

• We are providing additional exemptions from the ICVI requirement for equines moving interstate under certain conditions.

b. New Part Number

In the August 2011 proposed rule, the new traceability regulations were contained in a new 9 CFR part 90. In this final rule, we are placing them in a new part 86 instead. The discussion below of the comments and our responses to them will reflect this change in numbering. When citing specific changes we are making in this final rule to the regulatory text, we refer to part 86.

III. Costs and Benefits

While this rulemaking applies to cattle and bison, horses and other equine species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, the focus of this analysis is on expected economic effects for the beef and dairy cattle industries. These enterprises are likely to be most affected operationally by the rule. For the other species, APHIS will largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of existing disease program regulations.

There are two main cost components for this rule: Using eartags to identify cattle and having ICVIs for cattle moved interstate. The combined annual costs of the rule for cattle operations of official identification and movement documentation will range between $14.5 million and $34.3 million, assuming official identification will be undertaken separately from other routine management practices; or between $10.9 million and $23.5 million, assuming that tagging will be combined with other routine management practices that require working cattle through a chute.

Direct benefits of improved traceability include the public and private cost savings expected to be gained under the rule. Case studies for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, and BSE illustrate the inefficiencies currently often faced in tracing disease occurrences due to inadequate animal identification and the potential gains in terms of cost savings that may derive from the rule.

The benefits of this rulemaking are expected to exceed the costs overall.

IV. Discussion of Comments

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending November 9, 2011. We reopened and extended the deadline for comments until December 9, 2011, in a document published in the
Federal Register
on October 7, 2011 (Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091, 76 FR 62313). We received 1,618 comments by that date. They were from cattle and other livestock producers and producers' associations, livestock marketers and marketing associations, representatives of State and Tribal governments, and individuals. They are discussed below by topic.

Rationale for and Scope of the Rulemaking

Some commenters viewed our proposed animal traceability regulations as a one-size-fits-all approach to animal disease management. It was suggested that a risk-based approach focusing on specific animal diseases would be more effective than an overarching animal traceability program.

Traceability is a common epidemiological need, regardless of the disease. If APHIS relied only on the traceability provided by disease control and eradication programs, there would be a void when the programs were concluded. That, in fact, is the case today with our progress toward successful eradication of many diseases. For example, as we noted in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed rule, the success of our brucellosis eradication program, while certainly a positive development, has resulted in a steep decline in the number of cattle required to be officially identified. As a result of decreasing levels of official identification in cattle, the time required to conduct other disease investigations has been increasing. An improved traceability system would help address the risk of new, emerging, foreign, or reoccurring diseases. Our new approach to animal disease traceability provides a flexible solution that is endorsed by the animal health officials who conduct disease control programs.

Other commenters offered criticisms of our approach from the opposite perspective. A commenter stated that to ensure adequate traceability, the rule should apply to all livestock sold commercially, and not just livestock moving interstate. The commenter further stated that covering all commercial livestock under our regulations can be justified under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. A commenter representing

a foreign government stated that our proposed traceability system was not sufficiently comprehensive in that it would cover only animals moving interstate, would exempt animals being slaughtered for personal consumption from the requirements, and would allow different States to have their own traceability systems. Another commenter emphasized the latter point, stating that an overarching national system would be more beneficial for traceability purposes than would allowing States to enact their own requirements.

We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to these comments. Our statutory authority to regulate livestock movement derives from the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8305), which authorizes the Secretary “to prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance, if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock.”
Interstate commerce
is defined in the Act as “trade, traffic, or commerce between a place in a State and a place in another State.” The question of when or where that trade or traffic begins is subject to interpretation, and it is possible that some intrastate livestock movements may be regulated under the authority of the Act. Regulating the intrastate movement of livestock, however, would be contrary to the Secretary's vision, laid out on February 5, 2010, for the animal disease traceability system. The Secretary's approach, which called for the establishment of minimum uniform national traceability standards, was nevertheless intended to be sufficiently flexible to allow State and Tribal animal health officials to implement, with the cooperation of industry, the traceability systems that worked best for them; it was not intended to be a top-down system under Federal control. Additionally, it was not the intent behind the proposed rule to provide for a full-scale farm-to-plate traceability system, which would be beyond the scope of our statutory authority. Regarding the comments on the need for greater standardization, as we have noted, the proposed rule did provide for a uniform set of minimum national standards for States and Tribes to follow. This rulemaking allows States and tribes to adapt their individual traceability systems to meet local needs, but those systems will need to comply with these traceability regulations and will need to satisfy the traceability performance standards that will be set forth in future rulemaking.

Many commenters expressed concern about the possible impact on small producers of the proposed regulations, suggesting that the traceability requirements could be more burdensome to small entities than to large ones. It was recommended by some commenters that we exempt small producers. Specific recommendations included exempting producers with less than 300 or 500 mature livestock and producers who are sole proprietors of their operations.

We note that the size of the herd or flock is not the only factor contributing to the risk of the spread of animal diseases. Much more important is the degree to which the animals are moved interstate and commingled with other animals. Herds with no movement across State lines are exempt from these traceability requirements, regardless of the size of the operation, though the States and Tribes may have their own requirements. Additionally, we do exempt certain interstate movements where the risk of disease spread is minimal or where tracing such animals is easily achieved without additional requirements, e.g., movement of livestock to a custom slaughter facility.

A commenter recommended that we exempt registered heritage livestock from the proposed traceability requirements. The commenter stated that there already are adequate identification standards in place for such animals.

We agree in part with this comment. Specifically, we do agree that the identification provided by purebred registries may be adequate for disease traceability of heritage livestock. Nothing in these regulations would preclude the use of means of identification commonly employed on such animals. Our definition of
official identification device or method
is broad enough to allow for the use of tattoos and identification methods acceptable to a breed association for registration purposes when accompanied by a breed registration certificate, provided that those methods are determined to be official by the receiving State or Tribal animal health authorities. We do not believe, however, that heritage livestock moving interstate should be categorically exempt from all Federal identification and movement documentation requirements.

A commenter recommended that we exempt horses from the proposed traceability regulations and stated that interstate movements of equines should not have to be reported. According to the commenter, an adequate traceability and notification system, which includes brand inspections, certificates of veterinary inspection, and permits, already exists for equines, rendering additional Federal requirements unnecessary.

We do not agree that horses or other equines should be categorically exempt from traceability requirements; however, we believe that most horse owners are already in compliance with these provisions and need take no further action. A considerable amount of time in the last few years has been related to equine diseases, e.g., contagious equine metritis, equine herpes virus, equine infectious anemia, and equine piroplasmosis. Additionally, we do not view our traceability requirements as excessively onerous for equine owners, since, under these regulations, methods of identification and movement documentation that are already employed in the equine industry, e.g., written descriptions, digital photographs, and electronic identification methods, and are approved by State and Tribal animal health officials will be recognized as official.

It was recommended by commenters that APHIS recognize existing export verification programs as satisfying the requirements of the proposed rule and that livestock in such programs should not be subject to the animal traceability requirements.

While APHIS does support the use of official animal identification methods for various programs, including age and source verification programs used for export purposes, not all systems that verify age, source, or management processes for marketing animal products are necessarily designed to address the needs of animal disease traceability. Official identification methods used in these programs now can be used on animals moving interstate under these regulations if those methods meet our requirements for officially identifying such animals. Options to ensure that export verification programs cover disease traceability requirements more uniformly in the future will be developed in collaboration between APHIS and the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). States and Tribes currently have the flexibility under these traceability regulations to accept the identification and documentation such programs provide in lieu of official identification and ICVIs for animals moving into their jurisdictions.

Our overall justification for the proposed regulations was questioned by some commenters. It was stated that we did not explain or document how the

proposed rule would correct problems that have occurred in previous traceback investigations. It was further stated that the lack of identification on individual animals was not the sole source of our problems in conducting tuberculosis traceback investigations in the past.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying the proposed rule provided several actual scenarios where the lack of traceability resulted in significant costs to producers and the public in general. We agree that the lack of identification on individual animals is not the only issue related to tuberculosis traceback investigations, but it is an ongoing and significant issue. There is general consensus among animal health officials that insufficient traceability has helped to prevent the successful completion of the tuberculosis eradication program, which began in 1917.

A commenter representing a Tribal Government, while generally supportive of the proposed rule, cautioned that the proposed regulations should not contain language diminishing or implying a waiver of Tribal sovereignty. Tribal lands have defined borders that cannot be bisected by State borders.

We agree with this comment, but on further review, we were unable to identify any language in the proposed rule implying a waiver of Tribal sovereignty, nor did the commenter cite any specific problem areas. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this comment.

Definitions

In the August 2011 proposed rule, definitions were contained in § 90.1; in this final rule, they are contained in § 86.1.

The August 2011 proposed rule included a new definition of
animal identification number (AIN)
that was similar to the one being used elsewhere in the regulations at the time, albeit with one important difference. The proposed definition stated that the AIN consists of 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840 for the United States), except that the alpha characters USA or the numeric code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the International Committee on Animal Recording may be used as alternatives to the 840 prefix until 1 year after the effective date of the final rule for this proposal. Existing definitions of
animal identification number (AIN)
in the regulations contained the same formatting requirements but did not specify a sunset date for the use of AINs beginning with the characters USA or the manufacturer's code. We proposed to phase out those two AIN formats in order to achieve greater standardization of this numbering system, while providing producers with adequate notice of the change to enable them to work through existing inventories of eartags.

Some commenters suggested that phasing out AINs with manufacturers' codes would economically harm many producers and that we should instead continue to recognize such AINs as official under certain circumstances. Specifically, it was suggested that manufacturer-coded AIN tags should be recognized as official if the cattle bearing them have been enrolled in a process verified program (PVP) or a Quality System Assessment (QSA) program recognized by the AMS; if producers provide listings of the AINs to their State or Tribal animal health official; or if a system were developed whereby private organizations or marketing entities, in cooperation with State and Tribal animal health officials, could coordinate the application, recording, and/or management of the manufacturer-coded AIN tags.

APHIS does support the use of official identification devices for management and marketing purposes and is sensitive to the concerns about additional cost if such systems are not compatible with our traceability regulations. While the commenters did not specifically state what additional cost would result from the transition to 840 AINs, as provided for in the proposed rule, we have evaluated factors that could potentially increase costs. Low frequency radio frequency identification (RFID) AIN tags are based on ISO 11784 and 11785; thus, the manufacturing of tags in regards to technology would be unchanged. Likewise, electronic reading infrastructure currently in place would not need to be replaced. We acknowledge that retagging animals that already have been tagged with AIN tags using manufacturers' codes would increase costs to producers. The phasing out of such tags over time was intended to allow producers to avoid the need to retag animals. AIN tags with manufacturers' codes that are applied to animals before the 840 requirement becomes effective will be recognized as official for the remainder of the animal's life. Cattle enrolled in PVP and QSA programs are primarily feeder cattle, and these animals will be exempt from official identification requirements under this rulemaking; therefore, the need for producers of such cattle to transition to 840 AINs and possibly incur additional costs is further minimized. Future official identification options for feeder cattle, including options used in PVP and QSA programs, can be evaluated prior to initiating rulemaking to subject feeder cattle to the official identification requirements.

We do recognize that some producers may have larger inventories of manufacturer-coded tags that may not be used by the date previously proposed for the phase-out to be completed. To address the possible economic burden on these producers resulting from the transition, we are amending the definition of
animal identification number (AIN)
in this final rule to extend by 12 additional months the phase-out period for manufacturer-coded AINs. The amended definition states that the provision under which the 840 AIN will be the only one recognized as official will become effective on March 11, 2015. Tamper-evident AIN tags with a manufacturer code or USA prefix that are applied to animals before that date will be recognized as official identification for the life of the animals. In that the date of tagging cannot always be known or documented, we will continue to be flexible through the transition period, realizing that breeding animals with manufacturer-coded tags may be in the population for several years.

APHIS does not oppose the other options suggested by the commenters of having producers provide listings of the manufacturer-coded AINs to their State or Tribal animal health official or having private organizations or marketing entities, in cooperation with State and Tribal animal health officials, coordinate the application, recording, and/or management of the manufacturer-coded AIN tags. These alternatives are best implemented at the local level between the State and Tribal animal health officials and the producers in their area. If the shipping State continues to allow the use of manufacturer-coded AIN tags after APHIS no longer recognizes them as official, the receiving State can refuse shipments of animals identified with such tags.

We are also making a change to the AIN definition in this final rule based on another comment we received. A comment from an association representing Puerto Rican cattle producers noted that Puerto Rico has a unique country code under ISO (PR, PRI, or 630). The commenter requested that we amend the definition of AIN in the final rule to allow producers in Puerto Rico to use the 630 code on RFID tags. We support this recommendation and are amending the definition of the AIN in this final rule to allow Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories to use their country codes instead of the 840

code issued to the United States. However, the territories may continue to use 840 AIN tags if they prefer. We are also updating the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document to reference these country codes.

Finally, we are making a minor change to the wording of the requirement, contained in the proposed definition of the AIN, that 840 AIN tags be used only on animals born in the United States. The amended provision states that 840 AIN tags may not be applied to animals known to have been born in another country. This change reflects our view that we cannot reasonably expect that the person responsible for tagging an animal, or having it tagged, will, in every instance, possess documentation that verifies a U.S. birth location for the animal. In many cases, our import requirements for live animals in 9 CFR part 93 lessen the need for such documentation. For example, the overwhelming majority of cattle imported into the United States come from Canada or Mexico and are required to have a brand denoting their country of origin. This requirement ensures that almost all cattle of non-U.S. origin, i.e., cattle ineligible for identification with 840 AIN tags, are clearly identified as such.

Some commenters suggested that we should expand the proposed definition of
approved tagging site
to include any location in the receiving State where tagging can be completed prior to commingling, as verified by the State animal health official.

The definition contained in the August 2011 proposed rule provides for locations to become tagging sites when authorized by APHIS, State, or Tribal animal health officials. It is important that such locations are approved by animal health officials to ensure that the exemption from official identification requirements at time of movement interstate to an approved tagging site is properly administered. While livestock markets are frequently referenced as being potential approved tagging sites, other locations, such as feedlots, could become approved tagging sites under our definition. Therefore, it is not necessary to make any changes to the definition of
approved tagging site
in this final rule for the commenters' suggestion to be adopted.

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we defined
commuter herd
as a herd of cattle or bison moved interstate during the course of normal livestock management operations and without change of ownership directly between two premises, as provided in a commuter herd agreement. Under the proposed rule, cattle or bison moving interstate as part of a commuter herd were to be exempted from both official identification and ICVI requirements.

One commenter recommended that we amend the definition so that shipments of feeder cattle that are infrequently consigned or leased as rodeo stock could be moved interstate as commuter herds. The commenter stated that the commuter herd exemptions could be justified for such feeder cattle because they are not associated with the same level of disease risk as are cattle regularly used for rodeos or exhibitions.

We do not agree with this comment. Cattle that move interstate, commingle with animals from other locations, and then return to the original location pose a risk for disease transmission. We recently experienced an outbreak of a disease of horses that was disseminated from a regional rodeo to several States. Cattle diseases can also be spread in a similar manner.

Some commenters viewed our proposed definition of
dairy cattle
(all cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) typically used to produce milk or other dairy products for human consumption) as vague and overly broad, stating that they thought it would create significant problems for small-scale and diversified dairy operations. In particular, commenters stated that the definition lacked clarity regarding dual-purpose breeds, potentially creating confusion about which cattle are subject to the more stringent dairy cattle requirements.

After considering these comments, we determined that greater precision in the definition of
dairy cattle
would be desirable. In this final rule, therefore, we are adding to the definition of
dairy cattle
a list of some common dairy breeds to serve as examples. Specifically, we define
dairy cattle
as all cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) used to produce milk or other dairy products for human consumption, including, but not limited to, Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn, and Red and Whites. The list of representative dairy breeds we are incorporating into this definition comes from the Purebred Dairy Cattle Association. As noted in the definition, however, the category of dairy cattle is not limited to the listed breeds. While we believe that this new definition of
dairy cattle
is clearer than the original one we proposed, State, Tribal, or Federal animal health officials may still be called upon at times to exercise their judgments as to whether the cattle in a shipment are indeed dairy cattle, taking into account such factors as the intended use of the animals.

It was also suggested that we should amend the definition of
dairy cattle
to exclude dairy steers and spayed heifers, as such animals will not be in the U.S. herd for an extended period and therefore do not pose a major disease risk.

We disagree with this comment. Dairy steers and spayed heifers are part of an industry that has been identified as posing a high risk for disease transmission. Many dairy heifers and bull calves are moved from the dairy to calf-raising facilities, while some calves, mostly bull calves, are marketed privately or through livestock markets. This degree of movement and commingling at young ages and as yearlings makes them “animals of interest” regardless of whether they become herd replacements or feeder cattle. Furthermore, dairy steers typically are in feeding channels longer than beef cattle due to the length of time required for the former to reach finishing weight. Dairy steers and heifers may also undergo more changes of ownership and movements where commingling occurs than beef calves that typically stay with their dams until they are weaned.

Some commenters took issue with our proposed definition of
directly
as “without unloading en route if moved in a means of conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or without stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are needed for food, water, or rest en route if the animals are moved in any other manner.” A commenter representing the pork industry stated that while these restrictions were acceptable for swine moving for other purposes, swine considered to be in slaughter market channels should be exempted. Another commenter, noting that the proposed definition did not allow the animals to be unloaded from a conveyance even if they aren't commingled, recommended modifying the definition to address “the real risk factor” of commingling.

After reviewing these comments, we have decided to revise the definition of
directly
in this final rule to clarify that it will allow for necessary stops while addressing the risk factor of commingling. We are defining
directly
as “moved in a means of conveyance, without stopping to unload while en route, except for stops of less than 24 hours to feed, water, or rest the animals being moved, and with no commingling of animals at such stops.”

A commenter representing an egg producers' association stated that we should clarify the definition of

group/lot

identification number (GIN)

to allow for its use on poultry managed together as a group throughout the production system even if initial placement of birds may occur over a more extended period than a single day. The proposed definition stated that a GIN may be applied to a group of animals managed together as one group throughout the preharvest production chain. The commenter stated that the proposed definition could be interpreted to mean that a group of birds must be assembled in one day in order to be eligible for official identification by means of a GIN. The commenter viewed such a requirement as being problematic for the commercial egg industry because it is a common practice at commercial egg farms to place hens in a laying house over a period of days.

The GIN formatting requirements contained in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document do lend some support to the commenter's concerns over the proposed definition. Those formatting standards specify that the GIN must include a six-digit representation of the date on which the group or lot was assembled (MM/DD/YY).

We agree with the commenter on the need to recognize current practices in the commercial egg industry. While we do not judge it to be necessary to amend the definition of
group/lot identification number (GIN)
in the regulations, we are amending the GIN formatting standards in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document to specify that the six-digit date component of the GIN may represent either the date on which the group or lot of animals was assembled or the date when the assembly of the group was initiated.

Another commenter suggested that we modify the definition of
group/lot identification number (GIN)
as it applies to cattle to recognize that a GIN may be effectively used for some classes of livestock that may move from one location to another but are not managed as a group throughout the production system.

We do not agree with this comment. The GIN is intended to provide a method of livestock identification that is cost effective without sacrificing traceability. Due to the current gaps in animal disease traceability in the cattle sector, allowing the formation of marketing “groups” using a GIN, meaning that a GIN could, for example, be used when a group of animals is moved from or assembled at one premises but then split and/or commingled in subsequent movements, would be unwise from an epidemiological perspective.

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we defined
interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI)
as an official document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian at the location from which animals are shipped interstate. The proposed definition also listed information requirements for the ICVI. A commenter representing a pork industry association expressed concern that the proposed definition could be misconstrued to require the ICVI to be physically issued by the veterinarian at the shipping location. The commenter stated that it is common in the industry for livestock to be inspected at veterinary offices and an ICVI issued while the animals are in transport from origin to destination, a practice that provides a savings to the producer by supporting timely movement and clear identification of animals involved in interstate transportation.

The proposed definition of the ICVI did not prohibit the issuance of an ICVI at a veterinary clinic. The interstate movement could very well begin at a veterinary clinic, with prior movements to the clinic considered to be “intrastate” and not covered by these regulations. In order to clarify that ICVIs may be issued at veterinary clinics, however, as well as the premises at which they originated and other locations, we are amending the definition of
interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI)
in this final rule. The amended definition states that the ICVI is an official document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian certifying the inspection of animals in preparation for interstate movement.

A commenter stated that our definition of
livestock
as “all farm-raised animals” is vague and open to problems of interpretation. It was stated that, rather than tying our definition to a farm, we should define
livestock
by species.

As we noted in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed rule, our definition of
livestock
was incorporated directly from the Animal Health Protection Act. As we also noted then, the definition is a broad one covering species that are not included in this rulemaking but that could be commingled at venues, such as approved livestock facilities, with those species that are. Along with the definition of
livestock,
we included in the proposed rule a separate definition of
covered livestock
that listed the species subject to the requirements of the proposed new CFR traceability part. We included the latter definition in the proposed rule to remove any possible ambiguity regarding which species were covered under the rulemaking. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this comment.

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we defined
official eartag
as an identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official identification number for individual animals. The proposed definition further stated that beginning 1 year after the effective date of the final rule, all official eartags applied to animals would have to bear the U.S. shield. Previously, the definition of official eartag used elsewhere in the regulations, e.g., in § 71.1, required that the U.S. shield be used only on official eartags bearing an 840 AIN. We proposed to broaden the U.S. shield requirement to all official eartags in order to achieve greater standardization of this type of official identification device.

Some commenters objected to the proposed U.S. shield requirement for all official eartags. It was stated that the proposed requirement effectively mandated that private property be identified with a U.S. shield. Some commenters recommended that we allow official eartags to bear a State seal rather than the U.S. shield or that we allow States and Tribes to issue their own official identification tags without the U.S. shield, as long as combining the tag number and State identifier resulted in a unique number. It was claimed that a State code on an eartag actually provides the most important information enabling traceback.

After considering these comments, we have decided to amend the definition of
official eartag
in this final rule in a way that will allow the imprinting of a State postal abbreviation or Tribal alpha code within the shield in lieu of “US.” Instead of a U.S. shield, official eartags will have to bear an official eartag shield. This final rule includes a new definition of official eartag shield in § 86.1, as well as in §§ 71.1, 77.2, and 78.1. We define
official eartag shield
as the shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. Route Shield, with “US” or the State postal abbreviation or a Tribal alpha code imprinted within the shield. The alpha codes for Tribes, published in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document, may be used by Tribes that administer their own traceability systems. The States or Tribes will have the discretion to request that their postal abbreviations or alpha codes be imprinted on tags they obtain from approved manufacturers. Additionally, to ease the transition for producers, the revised definition will state that beginning on March 11, 2013,

all official eartags manufactured will have to bear the official eartag shield, but all official eartags applied to animals will not have to bear that official eartag shield until March 11, 2015.

We believe that these changes are responsive to the issues raised by the commenters, while still achieving greater standardization of official eartags without lessening traceability or increasing costs.

A commenter representing a cattle producers' association favored altering the proposed definition of
official identification device or method,
which stated that such devices or methods were means of applying an official identification number to an animal or group of animals or otherwise officially identifying an animal or group of animals. The commenter wanted the definition to be broadened so that it would not preclude the use of other, non-numerical means of identification, such as brands.

The proposed definition allowed for the use of brands or tattoos or other methods in lieu of official identification devices when agreed to by the States or Tribes involved in the movement. Nevertheless, as discussed in greater detail below, we are making changes in this final rule to recognize brands, tattoos, and other methods as means of official identification for cattle and bison.

The same commenter also suggested that we add a definition to the final rule of
official identification
as “any means of identification agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.” Other commenters took a similar view, though they did not recommend adding that specific definition.

It is our view that recognizing any identification method agreed to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes as official would expand the range of identification methods that would be so recognized to an unacceptable degree, thereby hindering traceability. However, in keeping with our goal of having a flexible traceability system, we will allow for the use of other options deemed adequate at the local level by retaining in this final rule the provision that the shipping and receiving States or Tribes may agree to accept any other form of identification in lieu of official identification.

We are making a change to the definition of
recognized slaughtering establishment
in 9 CFR parts 77, 78, and 86 of this final rule. In the proposed rule,
recognized slaughtering establishment
was defined as any slaughtering facility operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451
et seq.
), or State meat or poultry inspection acts. Under the existing regulations in 9 CFR 71.21, slaughtering establishments may receive animals moved in interstate commerce only if they have been approved for that purpose by the Administrator. The amended definition of
recognized slaughtering establishment
in this final rule states that, in addition to meeting the requirements listed above, the establishment must be approved in accordance with § 71.21.

Finally, while we are issuing a revised version of the Animal Disease Traceability Standards document concurrently with this final rule, we are removing the definition of that document from the definitions section because it is not used elsewhere in the regulatory text.

Recordkeeping Requirements

Recordkeeping requirements, which were contained in § 90.3 of the August 2011 proposed rule, are contained in § 86.3 of this final rule.

Many commenters expressed the view that the requirements in the proposed rule for maintaining official identification device distribution records and interstate movement records would be burdensome for veterinarians, sale barns, livestock markets and/or small producers. Under the proposed rule, any State, Tribe, accredited veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes official identification devices was required to maintain for 5 years a record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were distributed. Approved livestock facilities were required to keep for at least 5 years any ICVIs or alternate documentation that is required under the regulations for the interstate movement of any covered livestock entering the facility. It was stated that the proposed requirements were excessive for traceability needs in the poultry industry, since most broilers are slaughtered by about 8 weeks of age. A commenter representing a poultry association recommended that the requirement be for 2 years for poultry. The 5-year requirement was also deemed by some commenters to be excessive for feeder cattle, given their relatively short life spans. It was also suggested that the requirement should be 2 years for swine.

We agree with the commenters who stated that the requirements for maintaining movement records should reflect animal life cycles and industry practices. The lifespans of poultry and swine are relatively short compared with those of other species of covered livestock. We are therefore reducing the requirement for maintaining movement records to 2 years for poultry and swine.

In this final rule, however, we are retaining the 5-year requirement for the maintenance of official identification device distribution records. This requirement is warranted, as many of the species typically identified with eartags are those with the longer lifespans, with the exception of swine. Also, many official eartag distribution records do not include a species indicator; thus, having tag distribution records maintained specifically by species would often not be practical. Increasingly, these records will be maintained in electronic information systems, rather than on paper, making the recordkeeping requirement less burdensome.

It was also stated that the records that would be required under the proposed rule are maintained by States already, making our proposed requirements duplicative and burdening States unnecessarily.

Many States and Tribes do already have recordkeeping requirements at the local level. For States and Tribes with requirements that meet or exceed those included in this rule, there would be no additional burden. For States and Tribes that do not meet the minimum requirements, additional administrative processes may be needed or new rules may need to be promulgated at the State or Tribal level. States and Tribes receive Federal assistance through cooperative agreements for data processing and recordkeeping for animal disease traceability, lessening their financial burdens. We have the endorsement of the United States Animal Health Association, which has representation from all State animal health officials, for our recordkeeping requirements and for this rulemaking overall.

Contrary to the sentiments voiced by many of the commenters, a few questioned whether a 5-year recordkeeping requirement was adequate, given the long incubation period of such animal diseases as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). One commenter stated that movement records should be kept for the entire life span of an individual animal.

We will not be making any changes to this final rule as a result of these comments. As States and Tribes convert from paper-based to electronic recordkeeping systems, the length of time that records need to be stored becomes less of an issue. We believe, in fact, that those electronic records will be

maintained well beyond the minimum requirements. At the present time, we believe that the requirements we include in this rulemaking achieve a good balance between what is needed and what is cost effective to achieve.

Official Identification Requirements

Official identification requirements for covered livestock, which were contained in § 90.4 of the August 2011 proposed rule, are contained in § 86.4 of this final rule.

Cattle and Bison

The August 2011 proposed rule included a schedule for the phasing in of official identification requirements for cattle and bison. We proposed that, beginning on the effective date of this final rule, the requirements would cover all sexually intact cattle and bison aged 18 months and over; dairy cattle of any age; and cattle and bison of any age used for rodeos, recreational events, shows, or exhibitions. We deemed it essential to apply the official identification requirements immediately to those categories because they tend to live longer than feeder cattle, move around more, and have more opportunities for commingling, thus presenting a great risk of spreading disease via interstate movement. We further proposed to initiate a second implementation phase, in which we would extend the requirements to cover all other classes of cattle and bison, including feeders, after conducting an assessment and determining that the requirements were being implemented effectively throughout the production chain for the cattle and bison covered under the initial phase.

Many commenters objected to our plans to include feeder cattle (cattle under 18 months of age) in the second phase of our implementation of these traceability regulations. It was stated that it was unnecessary to include feeder cattle because most of them are destined for slaughter before the age of 2 years and hence do not pose much risk of spreading disease. Other commenters stated that the sheer number of animals that will be required to be identified and tracked under these regulations will make including feeder cattle very costly for producers, veterinarians, sale barns, and State agencies and that the volume of information that will need to be generated may swamp the whole system, for no significant benefit. The eartagging requirement for feeder cattle was viewed by some commenters as particularly burdensome for producers and others, and it was stated that identifying feeder cattle will not help in disease control.

We view the inclusion of feeder cattle in the traceability regulations as an essential component of an effective traceability system in the long term. Typical cattle management systems do not isolate feeder cattle from exposure to diseases. The epidemiological factors that support a complete, overarching traceability system in the United States require that all ages and classes of cattle be included in the animal disease traceability framework.

Many other commenters, including several representing cattle producers' organizations, recognized the necessity of adding feeder cattle to the traceability system but stated that such cattle should be added in a separate rulemaking for maximum transparency. Some of these commenters stated that they could not support the proposed rule as written if feeder cattle were not added in a separate rulemaking rather than under the notice-based process that we proposed.

After reviewing these comments, we have concluded that the inclusion of feeder cattle within the traceability framework can best be achieved through a separate future rulemaking, as the commenters recommended.

As noted above, we indicated in the August 2011 proposed rule that we would apply the official identification requirements to feeder cattle only after conducting an assessment and determining that the requirements were being implemented effectively throughout the production chain for those classes of cattle and bison covered under the initial implementation phase. Many industry commenters offered suggestions for an alternative assessment model to the one we described in the proposed rule. While feeder cattle will be subject to the official identification requirements in a future rulemaking rather than the current one, APHIS still recognizes the merits of conducting such an assessment as that future rulemaking is being considered. APHIS plans to consult closely with representatives from States, Tribes, and industry, including individuals from stocker/feeder sectors most affected by applying the official identification requirements to feeder cattle and most knowledgeable about the practical issues and concerns that can arise as a result.

One commenter expressed the concern that by requiring individual identification for sexually intact cattle over 18 months in the current rulemaking, we will inadvertently be including feeder heifers that were never intended to go into a breeding herd but that are being shipped to feedlots out of State.

When this final rule becomes effective, sexually intact beef heifers less than 18 months of age will be exempt from the official identification requirements, thus avoiding potential conflicts in determining if the animal is in feeder channels or being used for breeding purposes.

Some commenters, including the one who wrote to express concerns about including feeder heifers in this rulemaking, advocated increasing the age for the category of feeder cattle. It was stated that the identification requirements should apply to sexually intact cattle 24 months and older rather than 18 months and older. Another commenter from the same State indicated that 24 months would better represent the age of feeder cattle in that State, as under common operating conditions, calves after weaning may remain on pasture or grass until 2 years of age before being sold as feeder cattle.

We recognize the management and marketing challenges the 18-month age limit may cause, but emphasize the importance of retaining it based on the need to identify cattle and bison for disease control purposes. The 18-month age threshold has been used successfully in the brucellosis eradication program to define test-eligible cattle. Age, when not documented, can more accurately be determined for cattle at 18 months of age, as they would have lost their first pair of temporary incisors, than it can at 24 months. The need to officially identify this class and age category is further demonstrated when we note that since 1995, the number of heifers vaccinated for brucellosis has declined by approximately 50 percent, and the trend continues. Today, fewer than 20 percent of heifers are vaccinated for brucellosis. This low level of official identification is concerning, in particular for a class of animals of which many will be part of the breeding herd. For those heifers that were vaccinated for brucellosis, the official eartag applied to meet the identification requirements for vaccinates would meet the need for official identification required by this rule. We have noted several times that the States and Tribes have the option to recognize alternative forms of identification when both the shipping and receiving animal health officials agree. This flexibility allows unique and/or regional issues to be considered at the local level. In the scenario provided by the commenters, we believe that the alternatives to the official identification requirement for interstate movement of feeder heifers

over 18 months of age to feedlots can best be administered by the shipping and receiving State and Tribe. Exempting all heifers over 18 months of age would hinder traceability nationwide; thus, in these regulations, we are maintaining the 18-month age cut-off for the official identification requirement. Under these regulations, however, calves that remain after weaning on pasture or grass until 2 years of age before being sold as feeder cattle will not have to be officially identified before 24 months because they are not moving interstate until then.

Use of Brands as Official Identification for Cattle

One aspect of the August 2011 proposed rule that generated many comments was our decision to recognize only official eartags as a means of officially identifying individual cattle. Many commenters expressed the view that brands should continue to be recognized as an official method of identification for cattle and bison when the shipping and receiving States and Tribes agreed. Many of these commenters also maintained that we should continue to recognize tattoos as official. Commenters pointed out that brands have worked effectively in brand States for many years and that they provide a permanent method of identification, whereas eartags can be removed or lost. It was further stated by one commenter that electronic brand inspection certificates are a great aid to traceability, as they can provide traceback to the premises of origin for individual animals in less than 30 minutes. It was also claimed that the delisting of brands as a means of official identification would strip from States and Tribes the option of continuing to rely upon the brand accompanied by a brand certificate. A commenter further claimed that removing brands from the regulations as a means of official identification for cattle would discriminate against producers in States that require brand inspection as a condition of leaving a brand inspection area because such producers would have to pay for both the brand inspection and for other identification as well, as required by the proposed rule.

APHIS recognizes that brands and brand-certificate information can provide timely information that may enhance disease traceback investigations. The original intent of the proposed official identification requirements was to define as official identification devices and methods those that could easily be administered by all States and Tribes, since all States and Tribes would be required to accept all official identification devices and methods listed in the regulations for each species. As we noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we did not view brands as suitable for listing as a means of official identification for cattle because 36 States currently do not have brand inspection authorities. The option for States and Tribes to accept other identification methods, such as brands, in lieu of official identification was provided for in the proposed rule.

Some commenters provided recommendations for alternative text that would maintain the initial intent of the proposed requirements, while achieving the recognition of brands as an official identification method under specific conditions. Several commenters suggested that brands be accepted as official identification via bilateral or multilateral agreements or memorandum(s) of understanding between or among agreeing shipping and receiving States or Tribes.

APHIS appreciates and supports the suggested text revisions, and in this final rule, we are modifying § 86.4(a)(1) to add to the list of official identification devices and methods for cattle brands registered with a recognized brand inspection authority and accompanied by an official brand inspection certificate if the shipping and receiving State or Tribal animal health authorities agree to recognize them as such. We are also amending the paragraph to recognize as official identification tattoos and other identification methods acceptable to a breed association for registration purposes, provided that the animals are accompanied by a breed registration certificate and that the shipping and receiving States or Tribes agree to recognize them as such.

Some commenters cited as a concern the possible effects of the proposed official identification requirements for cattle on our import requirements. A commenter stated that in the in an earlier rulemaking (70 FR 459-553, Docket No. 03-080-3) in which we established requirements for the importation of animals and animal products from minimal-risk regions for BSE, we cited brands as a permanent form of identification and acknowledged that eartags may be lost. Under that rulemaking, imported bovines had to be identified with both brands and eartags. Another commenter stated that since cattle imported from Canada and Mexico are currently required to have a hot-iron brand, if we were to stop recognizing hot-iron brands as official identification for domestic cattle, those nations could claim that the United States is imposing a higher standard on their producers than on domestic producers. The commenter stated that we may not be able to keep the branding requirement in effect for imported cattle.

This rulemaking does not affect our import/export requirements. While brands may be used as official identification for cattle moving interstate in accordance with the provisions of this final rule, the branding of imported cattle from Canada and Mexico is not intended to provide official individual identification, but is rather a permanent mark used to designate the country that exported the animal.

One commenter stated that brands, accompanied by a certificate from a recognized brand inspection authority, should be allowed as a group/lot identifier. It was claimed that brands are more effective than any other means of group/lot identification provided for in the proposed rule and are the only means that would enable a traceback of a group/lot that inadvertently becomes separated from a herd and for which the paperwork is lost or destroyed.

The GIN provides a uniform standard for identifying groups of animals that are managed together throughout the preharvest production chain. In such a situation, the group is identified in its entirety as it moves from location to location with the GIN. The Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document provides the format specifications for the GIN. This standard number format is needed to establish and maintain compatibility of information systems.

Animals that are not maintained with the group will need to be identified with an official eartag or as otherwise agreed to by the animal health officials of the shipping and receiving State or Tribe. The revised definition of
official identification device or method
recognizes brand certificates as official when agreed to by the shipping and receiving State and Tribe. While we will be maintaining the numbering format specification for the GIN, States and Tribes have the option to accept other methods of identification, including those of groups of animals.

Finally, in contrast to the general trend of the comments on branding, one commenter supported the delisting of brands as a means of individual identification because of the cost to producers of brand inspections and health papers in brand-inspection States.

We are not making any changes to this final rule in response to this comment. Health papers and brand inspection are

two different activities. States that have elected to administer brand inspections have done so for purposes of determining ownership and preventing theft. Health papers, such as ICVIs, provide documentation that an accredited veterinarian has examined the health of the animals.

Identification of Direct-to-Slaughter Cattle

Many commenters favored exempting all direct-to-slaughter cattle from any identification requirements. It was stated that the risks to animals and the personnel that would be tasked with tagging them, along with the costs of tagging and reading tags, outweigh the benefits of tagging.

We agree that cattle moving directly to slaughter pose less of a disease risk than do other cattle, and we did allow in the August 2011 proposed rule for the use of backtags in lieu of official identification for cattle moving directly to slaughter. We view exempting such animals from any identification requirements as a hindrance to traceability, however.

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we indicated that our recognition of backtags in lieu of official identification for direct-to-slaughter cattle was to be phased out. Many commenters opposed the phase-out of backtags for identifying slaughter cattle. It was stated that while backtags have a poor reputation when placed improperly and when not collected by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) or plant personnel at slaughter, when they are properly placed, carefully collected, and recorded, backtags are an economically efficient, easily readable, and recordable form of identification for slaughter cattle.

After reviewing these comments, we have decided to amend § 86.4(b)(1) in this final rule to allow permanently the use of backtags in lieu of official identification, albeit with some new stipulations. One commenter who supported the proposed phase-out of the use of backtags in lieu of official identification for direct-to-slaughter animals thought the phase-out appropriate because some slaughter establishments put some cattle on feed after they arrive at the plant for conditioning purposes. After this extended period of time, the backtags are unlikely to be on the animals when the animals are harvested. Therefore, we are stipulating that the exemption from the requirement for official identification only applies when the animals going directly to slaughter are harvested within 3 days of their movement to the slaughter plant. This exemption is intended to apply only to cattle that are moving directly to a slaughter plant to be slaughtered shortly after arrival. We agree with the commenter's concern about the practicality of using backtags for slaughter animals when the animals are not going to be slaughtered shortly after their arrival. We believe that the 3-day timeframe adequately address that concern. Cattle moved to slaughter will typically be slaughtered within 3 days of that movement. If they are not slaughtered within 3 days, the movement is not considered to be directly to slaughter, and permanent official identification is required to ensure that proper identification is maintained until slaughter. If the determination to hold animals for more than 3 days is made after the animals arrive at the slaughter establishment, the animals must be officially identified with an official identification device. Such identification will be considered a retagging event in accordance with § 86.4(d)(4)(ii).

Another commenter stated that backtags used on slaughter cattle can sometimes be lost during high-pressure washing prior to slaughter. To address this issue, we have amended § 86.4(d)(2) in this final rule to account for the cross referencing of all animals, as well as their carcasses, with backtags or other identification received by the slaughter plant. Requiring the cross-referencing of the devices with the live animals, and not just their carcasses, will help to ensure that traceback capability is not lost between arrival at the plant and slaughter.

Approved Tagging Sites

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we provided an exemption to the requirement that cattle and bison must be officially identified prior to interstate movement if the cattle or bison were moved directly to an approved tagging site and officially identified prior to commingling with cattle and bison from other premises. Some commenters favored allowing approved tagging sites to tag cattle moved interstate with a back tag prior to commingling, which then could be correlated with the official eartag once the cattle are sold and sorted and before further movement. It was suggested that such an approach would enable markets that become approved tagging sites to better manage the flow of cattle in and out of the sites on a sale day, since having to tag cattle and bison with an eartag prior to commingling could prevent such facilities from operating at the speed of commerce.

We recognize that applying the official eartag on cattle or bison received at approved tagging sites before they are commingled can be problematic in some situations. Therefore, this final rule allows the use of backtags prior to commingling, as well as other practices that will enable approved tagging sites to efficiently manage livestock while ensuring that the identity of each animal is accurately maintained until tagging so that official eartags may be correlated to the person responsible for shipping the animals to the tagging site.

Commuter Herds

Another exemption from the official identification requirements was provided for cattle and bison moving interstate as part of a commuter herd with a copy of the commuter herd agreement. It was recommended that we also allow the use of other documentation or forms as agreed to by the States or Tribes involved in these movements that may not specifically be labeled or called commuter herd agreements. We agree with this comment, as it is in keeping with our approach to developing a traceability system that will allow States and Tribes to use the methods that work best for them, and we are amending § 86.4(b)(1) accordingly.

Use of Multiple Eartags

In the August 2011 proposed rule, we prohibited the use of multiple official identification devices on a single animal with the following exceptions:

• A State or Tribal animal health official or an area veterinarian in charge could approve the application of a second official identification device in specific cases when the need to maintain the identity of an animal is intensified, such as for export shipments, quarantined herds, field trials, experiments, or disease surveys, but not merely for convenience in identifying animals.

• An eartag with an AIN beginning with the 840 prefix (either RFID or visual-only tag) may be applied to an animal that is already officially identified with an eartag with a NUES number, as AIN devices are commonly used for herd management purposes.

• A brucellosis vaccination eartag with a NUES number could be applied for management purposes in accordance with the existing brucellosis regulations to an animal that is already officially identified under the traceability regulations.

Many commenters opposed the proposed restrictions, with some questioning our rationale that the use of multiple official identification devices

on the same animal can cause confusion and impede efforts to track the movements of that animal. Some of these commenters stated that, contrary to our view, using multiple official identification devices on the same animal can create redundancies and thereby aid traceability. Other commenters requested clarification of the requirements, suggesting that if brands or tattoos were to be allowed as official identification for cattle in the final rule, then the prohibition on multiple official identification devices would seem to preclude the use of eartags on branded or tattooed cattle.

As stated in the preamble of the August 2011 proposed rule, the use of multiple official eartags with multiple official identification numbers for a single animal can cause confusion and impede efforts to track the movements of that animal. This problem has primarily occurred when the same animal had multiple National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) eartags, sometimes as many as three or more. We acknowledge that having more than one NUES tag may provide additional points of reference for the animal's location. For example, if the animal with multiple NUES tags is the index animal that has tested positive for the disease under investigation, the multiple NUES tag numbers for that animal are all recorded when the traceback investigation is initiated. While applying an additional NUES eartag effectively identifies the cattle in the shipment, however, the animals become difficult to trace when the official number on the new official eartag is not recorded or aligned with the initial or existing NUES tag number. An investigating animal health officer often sees tag numbers on epidemiological reports of suspect animals that need to be located for testing. Without being able to cross-reference the multiple official identification numbers, the animal health official can only assume that each official identification number that becomes part of the investigation represents a different animal that must each be traced. This increases the complexity of the traceback and lengthens the investigation.

After reviewing the comments on this issue, we considered requiring recording the initial number(s) when applying an additional official eartag to align the official identification numbers of the new tag and the tag(s) already attached to the animal and reflect that both the existing eartag(s) and the new eartag are on the same animal. However we determined it was more practical to adhere to the general approach we took in the proposed rule, which was to prohibit the application of additional official identification devices to a single animal unless warranted by a specific situation. We are, however, clarifying that the restriction applies to official eartags only. As noted above, under the provisions of this final rule, brands, tattoos, and breed registry certificates may be recognized as official by shipping and receiving States and Tribes. Because only the use of multiple official eartags will be restricted, it will be permissible to tag animals already identified with brands or tattoos.

Adjusting for instances where stakeholders have indicated that additional official eartags would provide herd management advantages, we are also clarifying the language of the above-listed exceptions, including information recording requirements, and adding an exception that will allow the use of multiple official eartags with the same official identification number on a single animal. Producers often use AIN tags to manage herds because the tags are large enough to contain both management numbers and the AIN. Tag manufacturers, at the request of producers, have provided sets of two or three tags with the same AIN. This allows the AIN eartag to be applied in each ear; in some situations, a smaller button or RFID tag with the same number is applied to one of the ears. AIN tags with the same number thus may be applied to the same animal. While metal NUES tags have not been provided in sets, this option will apply to any official eartag produced with the same number and attached to the same animal.

Removal or Loss of Official Identification Devices

Some cattle producers stated that traceability considerations are often ignored by slaughterhouses, and the traceability of an animal is lost and open to fraud once an animal is dismembered and its tags separated from the meat. It was suggested that such noncompliance could continue to hinder traceability even after traceability program is implemented. Many of these commenters stated that before the proposed rule is finalized, APHIS must have a defined plan and agreement in place with FSIS and/or the harvesting establishments relative to the collection and recording of retired tags at slaughter. Such recording and retirement is necessary for a bookend system to function.

We recognize that compliance with all the regulations is important to support traceability and plan to work with FSIS and slaughter plants to ensure the collection of identification devices. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) will be established between APHIS and FSIS regarding the responsibilities of the two agencies for the collection of identification at the slaughter plants. We are also amending § 86.4(d)(2) to state explicitly that collecting identification devices at slaughter and providing them to APHIS and FSIS is the responsibility of the slaughter plant. Additionally, this rulemaking requires that a cross reference of the carcass and the animal's identification be maintained through carcass inspection. Maintaining the identity past that inspection is outside the scope of these regulations, however. When the carcass passes inspection, the collected identification devices are to be provided to APHIS, which will be responsible for the administration of tag and animal termination recording.

Replacement of Official Eartags

Some commenters stated that our proposed process for replacing lost tags would necessitate additional recordkeeping and place an unrealistic burden on small producers. It was recommended that producers be exempted from the 5-year recordkeeping requirement associated with applying a new device after one has been lost.

The vast majority of the records that support the traceability regulations will be maintained by individuals other than producers. Since producers may retag animals that lose their official eartags, they may be the only ones that have such information. Therefore, these records must be maintained by the producer. While tag loss is expected, the percentage of animals that lose their eartags is a small percentage of all animals tagged. Therefore, the volume of records any producer will need to maintain for this requirement is expected to be quite low.

Some commenters requested that we amend the final rule to allow producers to obtain a replacement AIN tag with the same 840 AIN when a tag has been lost or is no longer a viable tag. It was stated that because these tags are already used for management purposes in many dairies and some beef operations, allowing producers to replace AIN/840 tags with duplicates would avoid unnecessary confusion that could be caused by assigning an animal more than one number and thus help to maintain the viability and integrity of the national traceability system.

We agree with this comment. In fact, while the proposed rule did not include regulatory text allowing for the issuance of such duplicate tags, it did not expressly prohibit such issuance either. The existing Animal Identification

Management System (AIMS) has had a tag reporting option established for AIN device manufacturers for reporting the distribution of duplicate AIN eartags. Additionally, ISO 11784, which AIN radio frequency tags adhere to, provides for the encoding of a portion of the code for the administration of duplicate replacement tags. Nonetheless, we are amending § 86.4(d)(4) in this final rule to allow for both the retagging of animals with tags imprinted with different official identification numbers from the ones being replaced and retagging of animals with replacement or duplicate tags that have the same official identification number as was imprinted on the animal's initial official eartag. While the commenters referenced the issuance of duplicate replacement eartags for 840 AIN tags only, the amended text allows for the use, as well, of other animal numbering systems that can readily be produced with the animal's original number. The protocol for the administration of duplicate replacement eartags is provided for in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document, a revised version of which is being released in conjunction with this final rule.

Other Issues Pertaining to the Use of Official Eartags on Cattle

Some commenters recommended that the final rule should allow the use of owner-shipper tags, for feeder cattle only, at receiving locations for cattle owners or shippers who lack tagging facilities and who sell directly to buyer in another State. A few of these commenters, while supporting the recommendation, stated that this tagging option should be allowed only at an approved tagging site.

While markets are likely to be the most common locations that become approved tagging sites, animal health officials may approve feedlots to tag animals on behalf of the producer that shipped or sold the animals. This exemption from the requirement for official identification prior to interstate movement, however, is limited to locations that are approved tagging sites. Producers that elect to use a tagging site may choose to obtain the official eartags and provide them to the personnel of the tagging site to have those official tags applied to their animals. We consider the option of officially identifying animals at any destination to be too broad, potentially leading to deficiencies in the maintenance of identification records. The approval process for tagging sites allows for oversight of these locations to ensure that necessary records are properly maintained and provides adequate flexibility to allow States and Tribes to determine the extent to which tagging sites are utilized.

Some commenters suggested that we should require a State code to be imprinted on official eartags. It was claimed that a State code provides the most important information needed to enable traceback.

While the numbering system for the NUES utilizes State and Tribal codes, the 840 AIN does not. States that obtain AIN devices may elect to have the State abbreviation imprinted on the AIN eartags, and several States are doing so when they obtain the tags. Unlike NUES tags, the AIN tags are available in many tag types, currently exceeding 40. The inventorying of multiple tag types by States and Tribes creates significant logistical challenges, and to minimize the options would lessen the flexibility currently provided. While States and/or producers that obtain the tags may have their State or Tribal codes imprinted on them, we determined that requiring it to be imprinted on the tag or to be part of the AIN would cause tag distribution inefficiencies that outweighed the potential advantages. For example, because the distribution of AIN tags is not limited to direct shipment from the manufacturer to the producer's farm at the time of manufacture, the State where the farm receiving the tags is located may be unknown. Additionally, maintaining distribution records of both NUES tags and AIN tags in electronic systems is imperative for timely retrieval of tag distribution data for traceback investigations, as the State designations alone are typically not specific enough for this purpose.

Our reliance on eartags for official identification in the proposed traceability regulations was questioned by some commenters on the grounds that tagging is not necessarily synonymous with effective traceability.

We agree that official identification in itself is not sufficient for an effective traceability system. When combined, however, with the information obtained from the records of tag distribution and the availability of management records and movement documents with nationally unique numbers, eartags have been and will continue to be invaluable to traceback investigations.

In our earlier discussion of the definition of
official eartag,
we noted that some commenters opposed the U.S. shield requirement, and we amended the definition in response to those comments. Some of those commenters recommended that we allow States and Tribes to issue their own official identification tags without the U.S. shield, as long as combining the tag number and State identifier resulted in a unique number.

A standardized way of marking all official tags is considered critical to help clarify the confusion that currently exists relative to eartags being official. Standardization will support a more user-friendly system and help increase the level of compliance. We believe it is important to have a simple and standardized means of determining if a tag is official. The standardization of numbers also allows for automated error checking, resulting in greater data integrity in information systems. The addition of the definition of
official eartag shield,
discussed above, to the regulations allows the States and Tribes to imprint their postal abbreviations or alpha codes instead of “US” on the tag. States and Tribes will be able to administer their own official eartags, provided that those eartags adhere to our definition of
official eartag.

A commenter questioned how a producer or organization would request printed AIN tags for a location without a national premises identification number (PIN). The commenter recommended allowing AIN eartags to be ordered with a State location identifier in lieu of a national PIN.

In this rulemaking, while continuing to allow for the use of the PIN, we also provide for the use of a
location identification (LID) number,
which we define as a nationally unique number issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to a location as determined by the State or Tribe in which it is issued. As noted in Section B of the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document, producers may obtain AIN tags provided they have either a PIN or an LID.

Some commenters recommended that we add language to the final rule to provide a method for the use of electronic identification of cattle that are currently located in the United States but that originated in another country.

APHIS does recognize that limiting the use of 840 AINs to cattle born in the United States and the transition from accepting manufacturer-coded AINs as official will cause a void in the availability of official RFID tags for imported livestock. The use of the manufacturer-coded RFID AIN tags will provide an option for the identification of such cattle until the date such tags are no longer recognized as official at time of application. Consideration of a long-term solution to this issue is being given, and any resulting changes will be reflected in future updates of the

Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document.

A commenter recommended that we require official 840 RFID tags for all female dairy cattle and those male dairy cattle used for reproductive purposes and that we require an official 840 “brite” or RFID tag for those male dairy cattle (bull calves) used for meat purposes, i.e., fed veal or dairy beef steers.

In keeping with the vision for the animal disease traceability system set out by the Secretary on February 5, 2010, we have elected not to specify which eartag is required for any sector of the cattle population, as it is our thinking that this decision is best made by the producers and animal owners.

A commenter stated that we should not allow exemptions from official identification requirements for cattle and bison moving to approved livestock facilities, as he believed we did in the August 2011 proposed rule. The commenter stated that such facilities may be high-risk facilities due to the possibility of commingling of animals on the premises.

In the proposed rule, we provided an exemption from the official identification requirements for cattle and bison moving interstate to an approved tagging site. This exemption was intended to allow producers to have their animals tagged at such a site when they were unable to tag the animals themselves. We did not propose to exempt cattle and bison moving interstate to an approved livestock facility from the official identification requirements. The exemption for movement to an approved livestock facility applies to the ICVI and was provided because livestock markets are the approved facilities where accredited veterinarians are typically available on sale days to conduct the necessary inspections and issue the ICVIs.

Miscellaneous Cattle Identification Issues

Under the August 2011 proposed rule, beef cattle under the age of 18 months did not have to be officially identified prior to interstate movement during the initial phase of the implementation process, but dairy cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use, were required to be officially identified. Some dairy producers stated that the age for requiring official identification prior to interstate movement should be the same for dairy and beef cattle.

We do not agree with this comment. Dairy calves are raised much differently than calves in the beef sector, which typically stay with their dams until weaning. The significant movement of dairy calves and yearlings and their commingling with cattle from multiple dairies increases the risk of disease spread, justifying their inclusion in the current rulemaking. As we have already noted, we now intend to subject feeder cattle to the official identification requirements in a separate future rulemaking.

A commenter requested clarification on whether steers of dairy origin would be exempted from identification requirements when this final rule became effective.

Under the proposed rule, all dairy cattle were to be subject to the official identification requirements beginning on the effective date of this final rule. Upon further consideration, we have concluded that there would be minimal value in officially identifying for the first time older dairy steers that may have already moved interstate before the effective date of this final rule. While the identification of animals in the dairy sector is important, in particular at young ages, we have determined it to be appropriate, at this point, to apply the official identification requirements only to male dairy animals born after the effective date of this final rule. We have revised the provision pertaining to the official identification of dairy cattle for interstate movement to state that beginning on March 11, 2013, all dairy females, regardless of age, and all male dairy animals that are born after that date will be required to be officially identified prior to interstate movement.

A commenter requested that we include third-party traceability programs, such as the above-mentioned AMS-recognized programs, currently used by numerous cattle producers to verify the age and source of livestock as an official identification method.

The use of the official identification devices or methods allowed for cattle under these regulations can easily support such programs if the eartags used in the programs bear numbers that meet our definition of
official identification number.
The AMS programs referred to earlier require a unique number only within their certified programs, however. Since there are a number of other systems that verify processes, feeding claims, exports, quality system assessment, or product label claims, relying only on system-specific or proprietary numbers would cause problems in traceability systems that require nationally unique numbers. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this comment. However, as noted earlier, APHIS will work with AMS to establish greater standardization, in particular for animal numbering systems, to ensure that identification methods meet the requirements necessary for both programs.

A commenter stated that the cattle industry cannot afford to have individual tags read and that APHIS should allow tags or brands to be used to identify groups of cattle.

These traceability regulations do allow for the use of group identification when the animals move through the preharvest production chain as one group. In such a situation, the group can be identified in its entirety. However, when individual animals are moved and commingled with cattle from other premises, the determination of which animal was at what location can no longer be achieved with a group identifier; therefore, we cannot allow for the broad use of group identification for cattle that the commenter recommends. APHIS does recognize the complexity of recording official identification numbers on the ICVI and has limited that requirement in this rulemaking to those cattle and bison that will be covered by the official identification requirements on the date when this final rule becomes effective.

A commenter took the position that APHIS should allow one PIN to apply to all cattle at various ranches owned by a single operation.

Location identifiers are administered by the States and Tribes. The use of one location identifier is often appropriate when cattle typically move among those locations. Allowing the use of a single location identifier to designate multiple premises or locations, however, can be problematic if there are large distances between the various locations. For example, consider an operation with a home location and one or more locations at various distances, one of which is 20 miles from the home premises. In this example, suppose that a disease is traced to the home farm and a 10-mile quarantine zone is placed around it. If at the time of quarantine, the animal health official is only aware of the location of the home premises (because all locations are reported as one), the operations outside the 10-mile zone would initially be left out of the investigation. As the investigation is further conducted, the quarantine zone will be extended, but having knowledge of those additional locations early on helps animal health officials quickly determine the scope of the disease and reduces the time and expense of the investigation. Since States and Tribes administer location identifiers, it is their prerogative to determine how to issue them in such situations.

It was suggested by a commenter that APHIS should require the approval of

both the sending and receiving States or Tribes for use of group/lot identification with cattle. A location-based GIN would appear to be most useful in identifying calves from the ranch of origin to the backgrounding feedlot, according to the commenter. A location-based GIN, particularly when associated with a registered brand, would provide a level of traceability that is cost-effective for the producer, and would likely yield the level of granularity that animal health officials seek when conducting a disease traceback investigation.

While State and Tribes have the option to agree on other methods of group/lot identification, for such identification to be recognized under these regulations as official, the animals in a shipment must meet our criteria for recognition as a group or lot, i.e., they must be of the same species and must comprise a “unit” that is managed as one group throughout the preharvest production chain. In such a situation, the entire group of animals is being traced, and one number for the entire group is very adequate for traceability. It is the view of APHIS that these criteria for a group or lot of animals should be uniformly applied, so that, while States and Tribes may agree on alternative forms of group/lot identification, if they do not agree, a receiving State or Tribe will not be required to accept shipments of animals that do not meet the criteria.

Some commenters stated that what they termed “event cattle,” meaning cattle that may be used for a single event, are not a high-risk group like rodeo cattle and, therefore, should not be grouped with the classes of cattle and bison subject to the official identification requirements on that date that this final rule becomes effective. It was further suggested that event cattle should not have to be individually identified and, even if they were, that their identification numbers should not have to be recorded on an ICVI.

We do not agree with these comments. The commingling of cattle with rodeo stock, even for a short period of time, increases the risk of disease exposure. Additionally, due to the frequent movement of such animals, the documentation of individual animal numbers is important.

It was suggested that when commuter herds are approved for movement of animals between States or Tribes without meeting the requirements of the proposed regulations, language should be added indicating that if any of these animals are shipped to a different State not included in the commuter herd agreement, then these animals must be officially identified and documented to the original State of origin.

We agree with this comment and are incorporating it into § 86.4(b)(1)(i)(A) in this final rule.

Official Identification Requirements for Poultry

Many commenters opposed our proposed poultry identification requirements. It was stated that the proposed regulations would allow vertically integrated operations to use group identification for thousands of birds, while mandating individually numbered leg bands for any bird that crosses State lines and is not kept in an isolated group “throughout the preharvest chain.” Such leg bands are impractical, according to the commenters, and requiring them could be devastating for many pastured poultry and backyard poultry owners. It was also maintained that since many pastured poultry operations and backyard poultry owners order day-old chicks from hatcheries scattered around the country, the proposed regulations would apply to many people who never take their birds across State lines after that first shipment.

We have reviewed these comments and are revising this final rule to take into account the situation of poultry growers that are not part of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) but that receive chicks from a hatchery and/or re‐distributor (feed store, etc.). Poultry belonging to such growers will be exempted from the official identification requirements under this final rule, but we will require that the persons responsible for the animals received from the hatchery and/or redistributor maintain a record of where they obtained the birds. Redistributors will be required to maintain a record of where they received chicks and which growers received the birds. Most growers already retain these records, so the recordkeeping requirement should not cause an additional burden.

It was suggested by some commenters that we substitute for the proposed poultry identification provisions a statement that interstate movement of poultry would be governed by the NPIP. The existing NPIP program has worked well, according to the commenters, and there is no reason to add new, onerous tagging requirements.

While the voluntary NPIP meets our traceability requirements and has worked well for those States that require it, we acknowledge that not all poultry growers and sectors of the industry participate in NPIP. We believe it is important to maintain poultry, a major commodity group, as a covered species in these regulations and have done so. We continue to maintain reference to NPIP, but as noted above, we are amending this final rule to address the primary concerns raised by the “backyard” poultry growers.

Some commenters also stated that existing poultry numbering systems have been working well and should be recognized in this rulemaking as group or flock identifiers.

This final rule establishes a standard for identifying groups or flocks of poultry by means of the GIN. Shipping and receiving States or Tribes may also agree, however, to recognize alternate methods of identification in lieu of official identification for animals moved from the shipping State or Tribe into the receiving one, thus allowing for the use of other numbering systems that have been working effectively as group or flock identifiers.

Commenters representing the poultry industry also stated that requiring identification of chickens moved to a custom slaughter facility would cause a significant and unwarranted economic burden for producers.

In the proposed rule, we did exempt from the requirements of these regulations any covered livestock moving interstate to a custom slaughter facility in accordance with Federal and State regulations for preparation of meat for personal consumption. To alleviate concerns expressed by the commenters, we are clarifying the intent of the exemption in this final rule by removing the phrase “for personal consumption.” Therefore, under § 86.2(e)(2) of this final rule, all livestock moved to a custom slaughter facility will be exempted from the traceability regulations.

Some commenters suggested that commuter herd provisions, which exempt cattle and bison meeting the commuter herd requirements from official identification requirements, should be extended to include commercial poultry flocks as well. One of the commenters stated that the commercial broiler industry should be allowed to form agreements with States to ensure traceability.

Our commuter herd provisions were intended to address a specific need in the cattle industry, where cattle move across State lines under retained ownership for grazing purposes.

What the commenter is asking for more closely resembles the provisions in 9 CFR 71.19 that provide for the movement of swine within a production system. We do not believe that changes are necessary in this final rule in regards to expanding the concept of commuter herds to the commercial poultry industry, as the NPIP guidelines, which

are well-established in the commercial poultry industry, have provided very good traceability solutions. Additionally, the proposed rule did provide for States and Tribes to use other methods of identification and movement documentation for poultry. That is still the case under this final rule; thus, States and Tribes may enter into agreements with the commercial broiler industry, as suggested by the commenter.

Official Identification Requirements for Equines

Many commenters stated that a physical description of the animal should qualify as official identification for equines without that description having to be approved by an official of the receiving State or Tribe, as provided for in the proposed rule.

That proposed requirement was intended to apply only to those situations where the person examining the equine's identity had questions regarding the description provided. Where such uncertainty existed, an animal health official in the receiving State or Tribe was to determine if the description was sufficient or not. In this final rule, § 86.4(a)(2) has been revised to provide, as an option, that the animal health official at the destination may make the determination when called upon, but the use of the animal health official is not required. For example, the accredited veterinarian or authority at an equine exhibition may elect to make the determination of the equine's identity without review by the animal health official.

A commenter suggested that we should provide for additional identification methods for equines, such as existing microchips and biometric measurements.

These traceability regulations do provide for various methods of identification, including physical descriptions, electronic identification, digital photographs or other methods agreed to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes. Most of these methods are already in use, though biometrics is relatively new. Adding a second microchip that is ISO compliant to an equine that already has an existing non-ISO injectable transponder is not practical. We are, however, amending § 86.4(a)(2) of this final rule to add an option to recognize the non-ISO transponders as official for those applied to the equine on or prior to March 11, 2014. We are also adding a reference to biometric measurements as official identification.

Additionally, in response to other commenters who viewed our proposed equine official identification requirements as burdensome, we are adding some exemptions from the official identification requirements. Most of these parallel the exemptions allowed for cattle and bison. One, however, reflects the unique nature of equines. Equines moving interstate would be exempted from the official identification requirements if used as a mode of transportation, e.g., for riding or to pull a buggy, provided they then return to the original location. These exemptions will also be added to the ICVI requirements for equines in § 86.5(f).

A commenter questioned the need for imposing additional identification and veterinary inspection requirements for equines when current requirements for Coggins tests are being met.

Horse owners who are meeting vaccination and Coggins-test requirements would likely satisfy the requirements for official identification and documentation of equines under these regulations. Documentation completed in accordance with the equine infectious anemia (EIA) requirements in 9 CFR part 75 may be used in lieu of ICVIs. Identification previously used on EIA test reports may be accepted by the animal health official in the receiving State or Tribe.

Official Identification Requirements for Swine

Some commenters representing the swine industry expressed concern that allowing for the use of LIDs in lieu of PINs defeats the purpose of a single nationally standardized number and may lead to unnecessary confusion and difficulties in implementation. The commenters state that the PIN has become the preferred location identifier for the pork industry, with more than 95 percent of swine premises having registered with the standard PIN to date. Members of the industry strongly supported our maintaining the National Premises Allocator, National Premises Information Repository, and the data elements that are currently included in the repository. One comment from a pork producer stated that the use of the PIN should be mandatory on tags applied to sows going to cull markets.

This rulemaking does not disallow the use of a PIN, nor does it prohibit an industry from adopting it as a standard. We are simply providing additional flexibility for States or Tribes that offer an acceptable alternative means of identifying locations where livestock are raised.

Commenters representing the pork industry also expressed concern about our modifying some current definitions in the CFR by removing the data standards for GINs and PINs and defining them in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document. The commenters stated that while the proposed changes would allow for flexibility in defining various location identifiers and for the use of the LID as a component of a GIN, they will lead to unnecessary confusion. To avoid that confusion, these industry commenters requested that APHIS recognize the data standards defined in § 71.1 for the PIN and GIN as the official data standards for the pork industry.

We do not agree that it is the role of APHIS to establish industry standards; rather, it is to set minimum standards for States and Tribes that provide flexibility at the local level. If an industry chooses to adopt a specific standard, that is its prerogative as long as the standard meets the minimum guidelines of these regulations or is agreed to by animal health officials involved in the interstate movement.

Pork industry commenters further stated that, to avoid any possible conflicts that might arise between the requirements set out in this rulemaking and the currently applicable sections of the regulations that deal with the identification of swine in interstate commerce, veterinary inspection, and issuance of ICVI's, APHIS should clearly indicate in this final rule that the requirements of § 71.19 are the ones that govern the interstate movement of swine.

We agree with this comment. The August 2011 proposed rule did, in fact, state that swine moving interstate were subject to the requirements of § 71.19, and this final rule does so as well.

Official Identification Requirements for Captive Cervids

A commenter stressed the importance of flexibility in identification requirements for cervids. It was stated that such identification methods as brands, tattoos, and microchips, may be more appropriate than eartags for some markets within the cervid industry.

This rulemaking does not change the requirements for official identification of captive cervids, which are currently contained in 9 CFR part 77. Those existing regulations provide for various official identification methods, including tattoos and electronic implants.

Official Identification Requirements for Sheep and Goats

A commenter representing sheep and goat producers stated that, if in the future, APHIS should determine that identification for sheep is needed

beyond what is currently required for the scrapie program, then group identification should be allowed.

Group/lot identification is allowed under this rulemaking. Group/lot identification is not species-specific and will be available as an option for sheep and goat producers, as well as other livestock producers.

Miscellaneous Identification Issues

A commenter questioned how the LID is different from the PIN and stated that having two different numbering systems for the identification or premises may be unnecessarily complex and expensive.

The option of allowing a State or Tribe to issue a location identifier resulted from the strong negative feedback we received from livestock owners opposed to the premises registration component of the NAIS. While having location information on where livestock are raised is critical to traceability, it is recognized that States may have their own systems to maintain information on such locations. The LID option was established to provide that flexibility. Data standards for both LIDs and PINs are contained in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document.

A commenter questioned why the proposed regulations allowed the use of other identification methods and devices, if agreed to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes, in lieu of the official identification devices for the various species of covered livestock. In the commenter's view, allowing the use of other identification devices would result in a lack of standardization of official identification devices and would be detrimental to traceability.

These traceability regulations list official identification devices and methods for each species of covered livestock. The diversification of animal agriculture across the United States is tremendous, and, taking into account all the feedback we received over the last few years, we recognized that “one size does not fit all.” Thus we designed these regulations to support the efforts of States and Tribes to work with producers at the local level to implement traceability solutions that work best for all concerned.

A commenter stated that allowing group/lot identification of animals managed together as one group through the production chain would give a competitive advantage to vertically integrated operations over smaller producers.

The group/lot identification option is based on the need to have adequate information available to State, Tribal, and Federal animal health officials to conduct traceback investigations. Requiring there to be individual identification on each animal that moved through the preharvest production chain would not improve the traceability of those animals. Thus, group/lot identification is a justified option in those situations, regardless of the size of the group.

A commenter stated that there should be a uniform requirement, with no exemptions, that all livestock in interstate commerce be individually officially identified before moving interstate, as is now the case with horses, according to the commenter.

We do not agree with this comment. We recognize that there are circumstances where official identification and/or ICVIs for interstate movement of animals are not warranted from a disease-risk perspective or that the traceability of animals moving interstate may be possible without requiring official identification of individual animals. For example, livestock moved interstate to a custom slaughter facility are already identified to the person responsible for bringing the animal to the facility. An official eartag would not make the animal more traceable; thus, we exempted such livestock from the traceability requirements.

It was the view of some commenters that we should allow States and Tribes to choose the identification methods that work best for them and to select the level of traceability that works best for them, based on their needs and infrastructure constraints.

State and Tribes may use the forms of identification they prefer in lieu of official identification when the receiving States or Tribes agree to accept that method of identification for animals moving into its jurisdiction. Likewise, the level of traceability States or Tribes establish within their jurisdictions is at their discretion.

Documentation Requirements

Documentation requirements, which were contained in § 90.5 of the August 2011 proposed rule, are contained in § 86.5 of this final rule.

Many cattle organizations recommended that a fully electronic ICVI system be in place in all the States and Tribes as a prerequisite to expanding the official identification requirements to include cattle and bison exempted in this rulemaking.

The conditions for initiating a second rulemaking to cover those additional classes of cattle and bison have yet to be determined. The merits of electronic ICVIs are fully recognized by APHIS, and we believe their adoption is important to increase administrative efficiencies and to support timely traceability. APHIS provides an electronic ICVI system that all States and Tribes may utilize and supports options for third-party developed and supported systems. We have established data standards that third-party system providers need to incorporate so that their systems and ours will be compatible.

Some commenters took the argument further, stating that paper copies of ICVIs are not needed at all and that electronic copies are not only sufficient for traceability needs but should be required. It was also stated that the regulations need to allow for the use of electronic ICVI addenda.

We agree that electronic ICVIs have inherent benefits in terms of data retrieval, readability, and ease of execution, but disagree that paper ICVIs have no place in our traceability program. Although all States currently have the electronic ICVIs available for use, full implementation by the majority of accredited veterinarians will take time. We have areas of the country where electronic issuance of certificates that are Web-based is not possible at the locations where they are needed. While moving to increased use of electronic ICVIs is important, paper-based ICVIs will have a role in the foreseeable future. Additionally, even as the use of electronic ICVI systems become more widespread, it will still be necessary for enforcement purposes for the printouts of such certificates to accompany the livestock in transit.

Some commenters stated that the proposed ICVI requirements would be burdensome for producers. Because there are not enough veterinarians available in all States to conduct the necessary inspections on animals preparing to move interstate, having to obtain an ICVI would require some producers to pen their calves longer to arrange for those inspections. The result would be greater stress on the animals and reduced profits for the producers.

We acknowledge that there may be situations where the issuance of an ICVI is an economic burden. For that reason, we allow States or Tribes to issue alternative movement documentation in lieu of ICVIs when agreed to by the States or Tribes involved in the interstate movement. In this final rule, we are extending this exemption to include breeding cattle over 18 months of age, which would have been required to be accompanied by an ICVI under the proposed rule.

A number of commenters viewed the proposed requirement for the recording of individual identification numbers on

the ICVI as burdensome to producers and market operators, stating that the benefits of such recording would not outweigh the costs. It was suggested that State officials should be allowed to waive the recording of individual identification numbers on ICVIs.

An ICVI is a certification that a veterinarian has inspected specific animals. The requirement for recording the animals' identification numbers on the ICVI ensures that the inspections have actually taken place for those specific animals. State and Tribal animal health officials use the ICVIs to help in animal disease investigations. If the animals' identification numbers are not listed on the ICVI, it is more difficult to determine which animals were moved. To limit any possible burdens resulting from the recording requirements, the only animals we require to be listed on the ICVI are those we have determined to be associated with a higher risk of disease spread.

Some commenters stated that we should allow for the stapling of a printed list of RFID tag numbers to a paper ICVI rather than requiring the writing down of the numbers on the ICVI itself.

We agree with this comment and are amending the ICVI definition in this final rule to allow for State-approved addenda that would include an option for an attached printout of official identification numbers generated by computer or other means. The amended definition will also note, however, that such addenda or attachments may only be used if agreed to by the receiving State or Tribe.

Some commenters took the opposite view, stating that when official identification is req

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-31114. Public record. Not legal advice.