Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Racetrack Safety Rule Modification

Federal RegisterApr 8, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. P222100]

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Racetrack Safety Rule Modification

AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) proposed rule modification; request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

As required by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, the Federal Trade Commission publishes a proposed modification of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's rules addressing horseracing in the United States. The proposed rule modification would amend the Rule Series 2000 Racetrack Safety Rule, which establishes rules concerning racetrack safety and the safety of Covered Horses and Covered Persons. This document contains the Authority's proposed rule modification's text and explanation, and it seeks public comment on whether the Commission should approve the proposed rule modification.

DATES:

The Commission must approve or disapprove the proposed modification on or before June 7, 2024. If approved, the proposed rule modification would be effective on July 8, 2024. Comments must be filed on or before April 22, 2024.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section below. Write “HISA Racetrack Safety Rule Modification” on your comment and file your comment online at

https://www.regulations.gov

by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex H), Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Botha (202-326-2036), Attorney Advisor and Acting HISA Program Manager, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020

(the “Act”) recognizes a self-regulatory nonprofit organization, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA” or the “Authority”), which is charged with developing proposed rules on a variety of subjects. Those proposed rules and later proposed rule modifications take effect only if approved by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or the “Commission”).

The proposed rules and rule modifications must be published in the

Federal Register

for public comment.

Thereafter, the Commission has 60 days from the date of publication to approve or disapprove the proposed rule or rule modification.

15 U.S.C. 3051 through 3060.

15 U.S.C. 3053(b)(2).

15 U.S.C. 3053(b)(1).

15 U.S.C. 3053(c)(1).

Pursuant to section 3053(a) of the Act and Commission Rule 1.142, notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2023, the Authority filed with the Commission a proposed Racetrack Safety Rule modification and supporting documentation as described in Items I, II, III, and IX below, which Items have been prepared by the Authority. The Office of the Secretary of the Commission determined that the filing complied with the Commission's rule governing such submissions.

The Commission is publishing this document to solicit comments on the proposed rule modification from interested persons.

16 CFR 1.140 through 1.144;

see also

FTC, Procedures for Submission of Rules Under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, 86 FR 54819 (Oct. 5, 2021).

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Background, Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for the Proposed Rule Modification

a. Background and Purpose

The Act recognizes that a national uniform set of standards for racetrack safety will apply to a broad range of racetracks with widely varying environments in terms of economic structure, race dates, physical attributes, prevailing weather conditions, and other factors. As such, the Act directs the Authority to develop and implement “training and racing safety standards and protocols taking into account regional differences and the character of differing racing facilities.”

The Racetrack Safety Rule utilized a practical approach to this implementation, recognizing that some practices are already in place or can be put in place immediately, while others will require adequate time and resources to implement.

15 U.S.C. 3056(b)(1).

As directed in section 3052(c)(2) of the Act, the Authority's Racetrack Safety Standing Committee (the “Committee”) was constituted and undertook developing a comprehensive proposed rule setting forth a uniform set of training and racing safety standards and protocols. Since the initial Racetrack Safety Rule was submitted to the Commission,

the Committee has spent hundreds of hours over the last twenty months reviewing and analyzing modifications to the safety rules that will enhance human and horse safety and welfare issues. The Committee is comprised of four independent members and three industry members.

See

FTC, Notice of HISA Racetrack Safety Proposed Rule, 87 FR 435 (Jan. 5, 2022) (“2022 Proposed Rule Notice”); FTC, Order Approving the Racetrack Safety Rule Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (Mar. 3, 2022),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/order_re_racetrack_safety_2022-3-3_for_publication.pdf.

This submission is also made in order to comply with the Commission's March 27, 2023 Order that directed “the Authority to review all of its existing rules (Racetrack Safety, Assessment Methodology, Enforcement, Registration, and [Anti-Doping and Medication Control (“ADMC”)]) and submit any proposed rule modifications to the Commission by September 27, 2023.”

The Authority has reviewed all of its existing rules and this submission was the first to be filed in accordance with the March 27, 2023, Order.

FTC, Order Approving the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Rule Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority at 6 (Mar. 27, 2023),

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommissionOrderAntiDopingMedication.pdf.

On April 29, 2023, for the first draft of the Rule 2100 modifications, and on May 9, 2023, for the first draft of the Rule 2200 modifications, HISA representatives shared a draft of the these proposed rule modifications with the following interested stakeholders for input: Racing Officials Accreditation Program; Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (Scientific Advisory Committee); Water Hay Oats Alliance; National Thoroughbred Racing Association; The Jockey Club; The Jockeys' Guild; Thoroughbred Racing Association; Arapahoe Park; Rillito Downs; Thoroughbred Owners of California; California Horse Racing Board; Kentucky Racing Commission; Delaware Racing Commission; Maryland Racing Commission; National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association; Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association; Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association; Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; American Association of Equine Practitioners; American Veterinary Medical Association; Stronach Racing Group (5

thoroughbred racetracks); Churchill Downs (6 thoroughbred racetracks); Breeders' Cup; Keeneland; Del Mar; and the Racing Operations Committee. Additionally, both drafts of the proposed modifications were made available to the public for review and comment on the HISA website at

https://hisaus.org/.

On July 24, 2023, for the second draft of the Rule 2100 modifications, and on July 30, 2023, for the second draft of the Rule 2200 modifications, HISA representatives shared a draft of these proposed rule modifications with the interested stakeholders set forth above for input. On July 24, 2023, the revised Rule 2100 modifications were made available to the public for review and comment on the HISA website at

https://www.hisaus.org/.

On July 31, 2023, the revised Rule 2200 modifications were made available to the public for review and comment on the HISA website at

https://www.hisaus.org/.

Voluminous comments were received from various stakeholders, which are outlined in Item II of this publication. Attached to this publication is Exhibit A, which includes copies of all comments received concerning the rule modification proposal.

In accordance with the Commission's March 27, 2023 Order, the Authority's submission in support of the proposed rule modification discusses each of the suggestions made by commenters on the

Federal Register

from the original Racetrack Safety Rule submission where the Authority in its February 2, 2022 letter to the Commission

(the “February 2, 2022 Letter”) committed to further consider the suggestions. In accordance with the Order, Item III below sets forth the relevant comments and states the reasons why the Authority did or did not adopt the suggestions within the text of the proposed rule modification.

This letter is available on the docket for the 2022 Proposed Rule Notice at

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0076/document.

The Authority's Rule 2000 safety rules were implemented in racing jurisdictions nationwide on July 1, 2022. Since that time Covered Horseraces have been successfully conducted under a uniform set of rules devoted to equine and human health and safety, and that serve to ensure that horseracing under the jurisdiction of the Authority is conducted in the safest manner possible. Since July 1, 2022, the Authority has closely observed the rules in action, the Authority staff have engaged on a daily basis with the implementation of the rules, and many helpful comments have been received from members of the industry concerning the numerous aspects of the rules. Throughout this process, the Authority has been careful to focus on the further development and modification of various rules to enhance racetrack safety and welfare. After much study and analysis under the direction of the Authority's Racetrack Safety Committee, the Authority now submits this proposed modification to the Rule 2000 Series. The submission consists of a comprehensive set of modifications to many of the rules, as described in detail in this publication. In some instances, modifications are proposed to include more detail concerning a regulated activity, or to create new instrumentalities to further the purposes of the Act (as in the creation of the concept of Designated Equine Facilities in Rule 2144). In other instances, modifications are proposed to address unanticipated circumstances encountered in the implementation of the rules, or to provide clarity where questions have surfaced concerning the proper implementation of the rules in various situations. The reasons for the modifications, and any problems the modifications are intended to address and resolve, are outlined in the discussion of each particular rule modification.

In general, the Authority states that the rule modifications will affect Covered Horses by ensuring that races are run on safe racing surfaces and with properly inspected equipment and highly trained racetrack personnel; these matters are examined by the Authority's accreditation team pursuant to the Rule 2100 series. Numerous modifications are proposed for the accreditation rules to ensure timely and accurate reporting of information. In addition, Covered Horses will be affected by and benefit from procedures implemented to ensure the timely and accurate reporting of equine injuries and fatalities, rule modifications pertaining to veterinary examinations, the veterinarian's list, horseshoe inspections, and the performance of necropsies. These are only a few examples; all of the modifications are described further in this publication.

Covered Persons will be affected by and benefit from the proposed rule modifications as well. A chief example, and a matter of particular concern to the Authority, are the measures taken to safeguard the safety of Jockeys and other riders on the racetrack grounds. This publication will outline in detail the significant modification of provisions concerning Jockey concussion protocols, physical examinations, and human ambulance support.

Covered Horseraces will be affected by and benefit from the modifications in additional ways as described herein. The efficient running of claiming races will be much enhanced by the modifications to the claiming rules set forth in Rule 2262.

The prompt and efficient resolution of violations of the rules of racing will be enhanced by modifications to the riding crop rules and penalty structure, as well as the establishment of an intermediate appeal process that will hasten the resolution of riding crop violations. When the rules of racing are strongly enforced, Covered Horseraces will be run in a safe manner that directly affects and benefits both Covered Horses and Covered Persons.

A “Claiming Race” is defined in HISA Rule 1020 as a Covered Horserace in which a Covered Horse, after leaving the starting gate, may be claimed (or, purchased for a designated amount) in accordance with the rules and regulations of the applicable State Racing Commission.

The Authority is always open to comments from industry participants, and in the development of rule modifications, these comments have often led to the consideration and adoption of alternatives in the proposed rule drafts circulated to the industry. In the numerous instances in which alternatives to the proposed modifications were considered, this publication will describe the proposals and state the reasons why a proposal was adopted or rejected by the Authority, or in some cases deferred for future consideration.

The Authority states that the proposed rule modifications in this submission are consistent with the Act. The proposed rule modifications meet the requirements in 15 U.S.C. 3056(b), because the modifications are made to the originally filed safety rules that were crafted upon and established the 12 elements of the horseracing safety program as enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 3056(b). The new provisions that are established in these proposed rule modifications are also within the ambit of the elements of the horseracing safety program. Furthermore, the Authority incorporates by reference into this modification the existing standards that were set forth in the Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule previously submitted to the Commission in the original filing of the Rule 2000 Series on December 6, 2021.

As was the case then, and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3056(a)(2), the rule modifications herein take into

consideration existing safety standards, including the National Thoroughbred Racing Association Safety and Integrity Alliance Code of Standards, Association of Racing Commissioners International (“ARCI”) Model Rules, the International Federation of Horseracing Authority's International Agreement on Breeding, Racing, and Wagering, and the British Horseracing Authority's Equine Health and Welfare program.

This supporting documentation is available on the docket for the 2022 Proposed Rule Notice at

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0076/document.

With the review, input and ultimate approval of the Authority's Board of Directors, the proposed modifications to the Rule 2000 Series modify and enhance the penalties and adjudication procedures for the enforcement of rules promulgated by the Authority. The Authority submits herewith the proposed rules for Commission approval.

b. Statutory Basis

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. 3051 through 3060.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Modification

Rule 2010. Definitions

a. References to Corresponding Definition in Rule 1020

Various definitions currently established in Rule 2010 are also referenced in Rule 1020 of the ADMC Program Rules. The following definitions have been modified to reference the corresponding definition in Rule 1020, for consistent usage throughout the Authority's Rules: Act, Adverse Analytical Finding, Association Veterinarian, Attending Veterinarian, Authority, Claim, Claiming Race, Commission, Covered Horse, Covered Horserace or Race, Covered Person, Designated Owner, Owner, Person, Prohibited List, Prohibited Methods, Prohibited Substance, Protocol, Race Day, Regulatory Veterinarian, Responsible Person, State Racing Commission, Timed and Reported Workout, Trainer, Training Facility, Veterinarian, Vets' List Workout, and Workout.

b. Proposed New Definitions

The Authority proposes to add several new terms to the definitions section in Rule 2010 to aid in the proper interpretation and application of the Authority's existing and proposed new rules included in the Rule 2100 and Rule 2200 Series of the Racetrack Safety Rule. The proposed new definitions are set forth below.

Catastrophic Injury

means an Equine Injury that resulted in death or euthanasia of a Covered Horse within 72 hours of injury.

A commenter requested that the definition of

Catastrophic Injury

be broadened to include both sickness and accidents, and that it specifically incorporate the concept of sudden death, maintaining that sudden death is not an “injury.”

The Authority believes the proposed modification in its current form is appropriate, but will consider this comment in further deliberations upon rulemaking.

California Horse Racing Board (“CHRB”).

Designated Equine Facility

means an equine facility designated by a Racetrack in accordance with the procedures established in Rule 2144, whose biosecurity protocols are consistent with those of the Racetrack, and from which the Racetrack will accept horses onto its grounds with a valid health certificate issued within the last 30 days or in a shorter period of time if high risk situations dictate.

This term was modified significantly over the two rounds of informal public comment. The original draft stated that the required biosecurity protocols be “reasonably consistent,” but in response to comment the definition was revised to require the protocols to be “consistent.”

The same commenter suggested that the protocols be specified in the rule.

The Authority declines to adopt this suggestion, as it is incumbent upon the Racetracks to apply and review the appropriate biosecurity protocols.

The Jockey Club.

Several commenters suggested that the definition should be written to give the state racing commission the duty to approve the designation by the Racetrack.

The Authority considered this comment, but declined to adopt the idea because not all state racing commissions have a process in place to review and approve designated equine facilities.

The Jockey Club, Tom Robbins, Racing Operations Committee (“ROCO”).

Some commenters stated that no health certificate should be required for horses that ship to a Racetrack from training facilities owned by the Racetrack, and that to impose this requirement places an undue burden on horsemen, attending vets, and stable gate personnel.

The Authority on balance does not consider the requirement to be an undue burden when weighed against the health and safety of Covered Horses.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Epistaxis

means that blood from one or both nostrils of a Covered Horse has been observed after exercise, attributable to an episode of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (“EIPH”). The term Epistaxis is referred to in numerous places in the Rule 2000 Series, and especially in Rules 2240 and 2241 concerning the Veterinarians' list. This definition will make it clear that the only horses subject to regulatory action are those experiencing EIPH to the degree they show signs of Epistaxis. The definition of the term

Bled

will be deleted in this rule modification.

Equine Injury

means an injury to a Covered Horse that occurred during racing or training for which intervention by the Regulatory Veterinarian or reporting by the Safety Director pursuant to Rule 2131 is required, and for which an injury report must be submitted pursuant to the Rule 2000 Series.

A commenter asked whether entering injury information into the Equine Injury Database is sufficient to satisfy the reporting requirement.

In answer, the Authority notes that it is sufficient if the Racetrack shares with the Authority information entered into the Equine Injury Database; however, not all Racetracks do so. The Authority does not believe the filing of an injury report is unduly burdensome but will consider this possible concept in future rulemaking.

1/ST Racing.

A commenter opined that the definition is too broad and that the definition should apply to horses whose participation in racing or training has been restricted, in a manner similar to the definition of human injury.

The Authority notes that drafting the definition in a manner similar to the Human Injury definition would actually broaden the definition to include conditions that might temporarily restrict a horse's participation but are not reportable. The reporting obligation in the proposed rule is more appropriately keyed to intervention by the Regulatory Veterinarian or reporting by the Safety Director.

Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and Mid-Atlantic Strategic Plan to Reduce Equine Fatalities (collectively, “THA”).

Equine Mortality

means a fatality of a Covered Horse that is not attributable to a Catastrophic Injury.

This definition is added to facilitate the distinction between Equine Mortality and Catastrophic Injury, which is used in prescribing the duties of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee in new provisions proposed to be added in Rule 2112.

Exercise Rider

means a rider of a Covered Horse during a training activity that is not a Covered Horserace.

The defined term is included in the application of several proposed rules that are necessary to regulate the safety and conduct of persons mounted on horses on the grounds of the Racetrack.

Farrier

means a farrier (or horseshoer, plater or blacksmith) who provides all aspects of hoof care or orthotic services to Covered Horses, including trimming and/or the application of various orthotics to the hoof.

This new definition is added to define the term as used in proposed new Rule 2138 and elsewhere in the proposed rules.

Horseshoe Inspector

means a person (for example, a paddock farrier) employed, contracted, or appointed by a State Racing Commission, Racetrack, or the Authority, who has been trained in, and is responsible for, inspecting horseshoes or other orthotics on hooves of Covered Horses.

This definition establishes the new position of Horseshoe Inspector, who will inspect horseshoes under new rules of the Authority. These inspections are a vital component in ensuring the health and safety of Covered Horses.

A commenter asked if the qualifications of the horseshoe inspector can be defined.

The Authority believes that it is unnecessary to prescribe at length the specific qualifications of the Horseshoe Inspector and further notes that minimum qualifications for this position are set out in Rule 2137(b). The Authority exercises oversight over personnel performing functions on its behalf that allows the Authority to ensure that personnel are qualified to perform their duties.

National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (“HBPA”).

Human Injury

means an injury to a Covered Person that requires medical attention and, as a result, may restrict a Covered Person's current or future participation or employment in racing, and for which an injury report must be submitted.

The Authority adopted the suggestion that the definition refer to current or future participation in racing.

Breeders' Cup.

In line with another commenter's query as to the extent of the persons who are embraced by the rule, the word “individual” was replaced by “Covered Person.”

The commenter also asked who must submit the report.

A commenter suggested the term “may restrict,” since at the time of the report the effects of the injury may not be known. This phrase was incorporated into the definition.

HBPA.

HBPA. The Medical Director must submit the report under Rule 2132.

CHRB.

Layoff Report

means a report completed in a manner prescribed by the Authority and submitted by the Trainer or Trainer's designee for a Covered Horse that has not raced in a Covered Horserace for 150 consecutive days or more. The Layoff Report shall include, at a minimum, information regarding all examinations, medical treatments, surgical treatments, and exercise history of the Covered Horse during the layoff period.

This definition is added to define the term Layoff Report in accord with the new provision creating the obligation to provide Layoff Reports in Rule 2142(a).

A commenter asked whether the Authority already has all of the information included in the definition of Layoff Report.

The Authority does not have all of the information; during a typical layoff period, much of the information is not subject to the Authority's reporting requirements. Another commenter queried concerning the length of time over which records will be required to be provided, suggesting that a period of 30 days prior to submission should be sufficient.

In response, the Authority notes that the Rule requires reporting “in a manner prescribed by the Authority,” and the Authority will specify a reasonable span of time for which the information is requested.

The Jockey Club.

THA.

Outrider

means a rider employed or contracted by the Racetrack who oversees and assists with the safety of all Riders, Trainers, and horses on the Racetrack.

The definition is added because various rules govern the responsibilities and duties of Outriders.

NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing made helpful suggestions to the wording, including the inclusion of the reference to “contracted by.”

Pony Horse

means a horse, including the Outrider's horse, that accompanies a Covered Horse(s) during training or racing activities.

This definition is added because various new provisions create rules governing Pony Horses and racehorses in the same manner.

NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing offered a helpful suggestion which resulted in the inclusion of a reference to the Outrider's horse.

Racetrack Risk Management Committee

means the committee established pursuant to Rule 2121.

This definition is added in order to change the name of the Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee to the Racetrack Risk Management Committee. The term Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee has caused confusion due to its similarity to the term Racetrack Safety Committee.

Racetrack Safety Committee

means the committee (or its delegate) established pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3052(c)(2).

The definition is modified to include the words “or its delegate,” which is necessary to specify that the Racetrack Safety Committee has the power to delegate certain responsibilities and duties to other functionaries under the supervision of the Racetrack Safety Committee.

Rider

means any person who is mounted on a Covered Horse or Pony Horse on the Racetrack, including a Jockey.

This definition is proposed in order to cover in one term the various racing participants who are mounted on Covered Horses or Pony Horses on the Racetrack. Several proposed rules and modifications refer to all such participants, who are now referred to as Riders. For the sake of clarity, the definition explicitly states that the term Rider includes Jockeys.

Safety Program Effective Date

means July 1, 2022.

Traction Device

means any device that extends beyond the ground surface of the horseshoe and includes but is not limited to inserts, wear plates, rims, toe grabs, bends, jar calks, stickers, ice nails, frost nails, and mud nails.

A definition of Traction Device is added which aids in the proper interpretation of the Rule 2276 Horseshoe Rule. Traction devices have been thought to increase a horse's ability to “dig in” to the track surface to enhance propulsion and to prevent slipping. Traction devices also reduce the horse's ability to plant its hoof level with a hard surface and to dampen forces from the ground to the limb by inhibiting hoof movement through the surface. These effects can contribute to catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries. Rule 2276 follows scientific evidence that toe grab traction devices are associated with equine catastrophic injuries and appropriately limits the height of rims used as traction devices on forelimb and hindlimb horseshoes. The rule prohibits use of any other traction devices.

Veterinarians' List

means a list maintained, or approved for use, by the Authority of all Covered Horses that are determined to be ineligible to compete in a Covered Horserace in any

jurisdiction until released by a Regulatory Veterinarian.

This definition is added to define the Veterinarians' List more clearly. The term is used extensively in conjunction with Rules 2240, 2241, and 2242, and aids in the application of those rules. A commenter suggested inclusion of the phrase “approved for use,” as it appears in the modification.

The phrase is used to allow for flexibility in the event that the Authority does not itself maintain the list, but instead at some point in time utilizes a list maintained by another organization pursuant to an agreement with the Authority.

The Jockey Club.

c. Additional Proposed Modifications

The Authority proposes additional modifications to the definitions as set forth below:

Groom

means a Covered Person who is engaged by a Responsible Person to assist in the daily physical care of Covered Horses.

Jockey

means a rider licensed in any state and registered with the Authority to ride a Covered Horse in a Covered Horserace.

The Jockeys' Guild requested that the rule specify the rider of a Covered Horse in a Covered Horserace “or during training.” The request is understandable but unnecessary, as the rule only requires licensure and registration of the rider; the definition does not exclude Jockeys from the ambit of the Authority's regulatory provisions simply because an activity occurs during training hours rather a horse race.

The Jockeys' Guild.

Starting Gate Person

means any individual licensed as a starter, assistant starter, or any individual who handles Covered Horses in the starting gate.

Veterinarian

shall have the meaning set forth in Rule 1020. Notwithstanding any provision set forth in the Rule 9000 Series (Registration Rules), a Veterinarian who provides veterinarian services to Covered Horses shall register with the Authority.

The definition is modified to state that it has the meaning set forth in Rule 1020. In addition, a new sentence is added that requires Veterinarians who provide services to Covered Horses to register with the Authority. The safety and welfare of Covered Horses are of paramount concern to the Authority, and it is vital that information concerning any treatment rendered to Covered Horses be provided to the Authority, along with the identity of, and contact information for, the Veterinarian who has treated the Covered Horse. Registration of Veterinarians with the Authority is the most effective means to obtain the required information.

The following list contains those definitions that are modified with only a change in the form of the citation:

Lead Veterinarian

means any Veterinarian appointed pursuant to Rule 2134(c).

Racetrack Safety Accreditation or Accreditation

means the process for achieving, and the issuance of, safety Accreditation to a Racetrack in accordance with Rules 2100 through 2193.

Finally, the Authority proposes deletion of the following definitions as unnecessary: Out of Competition, Program Effective Date, and Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee.

2015. Racehorse Epidemiology Database and Study

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act mandates that the Authority, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, develop and maintain a nationwide database of racehorse safety, performance, health, and injury information for the purpose of conducting an epidemiological study. 15 U.S.C. 3056(c)(3)(A). The Act further provides that “the Authority may require covered persons to collect and submit to the database described in subparagraph (A) such information as the Authority may require to further the goal of increased racehorse welfare.”

Id.

at (c)(3)(B). The Authority proposes this rule in connection with its statutory mandate under the Act.

This proposed new rule identifies all sources of records and data that will be collected by the Authority for purposes of developing the nationwide database referenced in section 3056 of the Act. The majority of sources identified in this rule are references to other existing rules in the Racetrack Safety Rule under which the Authority is already receiving pertinent information and do not contain new, separate reporting obligations on Covered Persons. Paragraph (c), however, does require, upon the written request of the Authority, Racetracks to provide historical equine injury and fatality data for the previous 10 years from the date of the request. One commenter questioned whether the Authority has the statutory authority to request information and records that pre-date the Act.

In response, the Authority states that access to this historical information “furthers the goal of increased racehorse welfare” as it will aid in the Authority's research and understanding of the patterns and trends relative to racehorse injuries and fatalities. Additionally, the information will be used to initially develop the database which will expedite the research process. Other commenters

noted that some of the information referenced in this rule is already being captured and collected through other non-Authority sources, such as the InCompass database. These commenters are correct and, where applicable, the Authority does receive information directly from these third-party sources, obviating the concern of duplicative reporting.

Dr. Jeff Blea.

The Jockey Club, the Maryland Racing Commission, and comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

2100. Racetrack Accreditation

2101. General

Language in this rule concerning the adoption of best practices and guidance by the Racetrack Safety Committee has been stricken as unnecessary.

2110. Accreditation Process

2111. Interim and Provisional Accreditation

No significant modifications are being proposed with regard to this rule; minor modifications to terms used have been made.

The Jockeys' Guild expressed concerns about the granting of “interim accreditation” to Racetracks prior to HISA performing an assessment under Rule 2112. The Jockey Club noted that the delay could result in unaddressed safety concerns for up to three years.

The Jockeys' Guild also expressed concerns that the automatic granting of “interim Racetrack Safety Accreditation” by the Authority, and the length of time before the Authority is able to conduct an assessment of the track, might allow safety concerns to go unaddressed.

The Authority notes that these comments do not address the modifications and concern provisions that have already been approved. Regardless, if safety concerns arise, the Authority may intervene by issuing a Notice of Suspected or Actual Violation. In the case of very serious hazards, provisional suspension under Rule 2117 also provides the Authority with the ability to address safety concerns rapidly in the interest of protecting Covered Horse and Riders.

The Jockeys' Guild.

2112. Accreditation Assessment

Modifications are proposed in three paragraphs. Paragraph (a) is amended to require a Racetrack to respond to questions and inquiries posed by the Racetrack Safety Committee within a deadline established by the Committee, rather than within 60 days. This provides more flexibility in the time permitted to respond, in relation to the extent and nature of the questions and inquiries posed.

In addition, paragraph (c) is amended to require a Racetrack's response to a post-inspection report within 30 days, rather than 60 days. This change expedites the accreditation inspection and review process and will result in more rapid remedial action taken to cure any deficiencies in Racetrack operations or equipment. A commenter asked whether there will be a response from the Authority indicating that a Racetrack reporting submission has been received by the Authority.

The Authority is currently developing an IT modality that will confirm receipt of all submissions.

Tom Robbins.

Finally, Paragraph (d) is amended to include a new sentence that permits the Racetrack Safety Committee to require a Racetrack, as a condition of accreditation, “to take any remedial or other action that is consistent with the Authority's safety rules and Accreditation standards established in the Rule 2100 Series and Rule 2200 Series.” This provision provides greater flexibility in encouraging Racetracks to meet the accreditation requirements expeditiously, as an alternative to denying accreditation for non-compliance.

2113. Issuance of Accreditation

No significant changes are proposed for this rule. Minor changes to the language of the Rule are proposed for clarity.

2114. Effective Periods of Accreditation

Rule 2114 in its current form establishes 3-year periods of accreditation, which may be modified to 1 to 7 years if the Authority determines that a modified period is consistent with the rules of accreditation. No significant changes are proposed for this rule. A “notwithstanding” clause is included in paragraph (a) to make clear that the 3-year period of accreditation is subject to the 1-to-7-year terms set forth in paragraph (b). Other minor changes to the language of the Rule are proposed for clarity.

2115. Racetrack Reporting

Rule 2115 establishes reporting requirements for Racetracks. A new paragraph (a) provides more detail concerning annual reports to the Authority by Racetracks; the rule explicitly requires Racetracks to file a report within 30 days after the end of each race meeting, and, by December 31 of each year, to complete a Racetrack Safety Accreditation Audit. The audit is a key tool by which the Authority may monitor a Racetrack's level of compliance with Authority rules.

An additional new provision, paragraph (g), requires Racetracks to submit a certified report to the Authority within 30 days of the end of each Race Meet. A commenter asked whether the information required in the end of Race Meet report can be prescribed in the rule.

The Authority prefers the current language in the rule, which states that the report shall be submitted “in such form as the Authority may prescribe.” This provides greater flexibility, and the Authority will outline in an appropriate form the precise information required, all of which will pertain to Racetrack safety matters and requirements as set forth in the rules of the Authority. Another commenter suggested that the deadline for the report should be 60 days rather than 30 days.

The Authority believes the 30-day requirement is appropriate and not burdensome, and notes that the end of meet report consists only of data reporting; no narrative composed by the Racetrack is required. The sooner the information is provided to the Authority after the end of the meet, the more likely it is to be accurate.

Minnesota Racing Commission.

Tom Robbins.

New proposed rules will require Racetracks to maintain a list of, and contact information for, key personnel at the Racetrack. Racetracks will also be required to authorize third party system providers who collect information regarding Covered Persons, Covered Horses, and Covered Racetracks to provide data upon request, and to authorize any video replay or video service provider to provide to the Authority upon request high-resolution video replays of Covered Horseraces at the Racetrack. These new provisions will ensure the Authority may access data relative to Covered Persons, Covered Horses, or Covered Horseraces that is submitted by the Racetrack to the third-party system provider (such as, fatality information submitted to the Equine Injury Database or video replays to be used for injury and fatality review). These new requirements will further the Authority's goal of increased racehorse welfare and aid in making accreditation determinations.

Finally, new provisions in the rule permit the Authority to obtain upon request information pertaining to accreditation or suspected violations of Authority rules. Tracks are also made subject to on-site inspection by the Authority at any time so that any suspected safety violation can be promptly investigated and addressed.

All of these modifications refine the reporting requirements in Rule 2115, so that the Authority possesses the information it needs to review Racetrack compliance and make appropriate decisions concerning Racetrack accreditation. The painstaking review of all aspects of Racetrack operations are of vital importance in securing the health, safety and welfare of Covered Horses and Covered Persons.

2116. Suspension and Revocation of Accreditation

Rule 2116 establishes the procedures for situations in which a Racetrack is in material non-compliance with the Accreditation requirements. In addition to stylistic changes, a new provision is added which states that the Authority may consider all factors that it deems important, including factors established in Rule 8360(e)(1)-(5).

Commenters suggested that the factors for material non-compliance should be clearly established in the rules.

The Authority prefers to leave “material non-compliance” as an open term; the circumstances under which a Racetrack might be in material non-compliance are many and varied, and difficult to anticipate and articulate in their entirety in a rule. In response, however, the Authority proposed new language clarifying that the Authority shall consider all factors that it deems appropriate, including the factors established in Rule 8360(e)(1)-(5).

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

2117. Provisional Suspension of Racetrack Accreditation

Rule 2117, Provisional Suspension of Racetrack Accreditation, is a new proposed rule. This provision permits the Authority to suspend racing activity in a short period of time if “the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions or operations of a Racetrack present an imminent danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Covered Horses or Riders arising from specific violations by the Racetrack of

the Authority's Racetrack safety or accreditation rules.”

Rule 2117(a)(1).

Proposed Rule 2117 was distributed for public comment in July 2023. Since that time, the Authority has received numerous comments and has worked with industry stakeholders to address due process concerns that were raised during the informal public comment period. This proposed rule is the result of both collaboration with industry stakeholders and the Authority's input. Under this rule, the Authority may issue a show-cause notice concerning a provisional suspension of a Racetrack's accreditation if the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions or operations of the Racetrack present an imminent danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Covered Horses or Riders arising from specific violations by the Racetrack of the Authority's Racetrack safety or accreditation rules. The show-cause notice will include an itemization of the rules which the Racetrack is believed to have violated, the corrective actions suggested to achieve compliance, a request for a written response from the Racetrack, and a statement indicating that the Racetrack may request a provisional hearing within 3 business days of receipt of the notice. Notably, the Racetrack's accreditation would not be suspended during the time between receipt of the show-cause notice and the provisional hearing.

The Racetrack is afforded significant procedural due process protections under this rule; first at the provisional hearing stage and, later, at the final hearing. For instance, if the Racetrack requests a provisional hearing, the provisional hearing will be promptly held within 3 business days of receipt of the Racetrack's request for a hearing. The provisional hearing will be conducted by a 3-person panel consisting of 1 industry member of the Board, 1 independent member of the Board, and 1 member of the Arbitral Body selected by the Chair of the Board. The sole issue to be determined at the provisional hearing is whether the Racetrack's provisional suspension of Accreditation shall go into immediate effect following the provisional hearing, be stayed pending a final hearing under this rule, or be withdrawn. The burden is on the Authority to demonstrate good cause why the provisional suspension of the Racetrack's accreditation should go into immediate effect or be stayed pending a final adjudication. Within 7 business days of the conclusion of the provisional hearing, the 3-person panel will issue a written decision imposing an immediate provisional suspension of the Racetrack's accreditation, staying the provisional suspension, or dismissing the notice.

The Racetrack may seek prompt review of any decision rendered at the provisional hearing by requesting a final hearing, which will take place within 14 calendar days of the Racetrack's request for a final hearing. The final hearing will be conducted by a quorum of the Board and the 2 Board members who participated in the provisional hearing will be precluded from participating in the final hearing. The final hearing will be conducted pursuant to the procedural rules established in Rules 8340(d) through (j), which provide for a full presentation of evidence and place the burden on the Authority to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Racetrack is in violation of the Accreditation rules.

Within 7 business days of the conclusion of the final hearing, the Board may (1) order that the Racetrack's accreditation be reinstated, suspended, or revoked; (2) reinstate accreditation subject to any requirements the Board deems necessary to address the specific safety violations; and/or (3) impose a fine in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

The outcome of the final hearing of the Authority will be considered a final civil sanction subject to appeal and review in accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 3058.

2120. Accreditation Requirements

2121. Racetrack Risk Management Committee

The title of the Committee has been changed to Racetrack Risk Management Committee. As noted in several comments, the previous title, the Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee, was sometimes confused with the Racetrack Safety Committee established by the Act.

The Rule sets forth the composition of the Committee. Revisions are proposed which rename several positions; the term “Horsemen's representative” has been replaced by “Owners' representative” and “Trainers' representative,” as Owners and Trainers are often collectively referred to as “Horsemen.”

The Racetrack may alter the composition of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, if approved by the Racetrack Safety Committee. This allows the Racetrack to adapt the structure of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee to well-functioning structures already in place in states such as California.

Prompted by a comment from the CHRB.

The current rule specifies the responsibilities of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee in paragraph (c); several modifications clarify terminology and duties. New provisions require interviews of witnesses to be conducted in the case of Human Injury, and to interview Racetrack personnel when appropriate in the review of Catastrophic Injuries and Equine Mortalities. In addition, the Rule expands upon current language to specify that the Racetrack Risk Management Committee must file a certified end of meet report, with attached meeting minutes, within 60 days of the end of a race meet of fewer than 60 days (this is separate from the Racetrack's obligation to submit an end of meet report 30 days after the meet). Quarterly reports are required for race meets of 60 days or more. The Racetrack Safety Committee will specify the contents of the post-meet report, in response to a commenter who queried concerning the contents of the report.

Minnesota Racing Commission.

A new paragraph (b)(2) clarifies that the Regulatory Veterinarian shall chair the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, unless there is no agreement between the Authority and the State Racing Commission. If there is no agreement, a Lead Veterinarian shall be appointed by the Racetrack and shall chair the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, and the cost of this position will be funded by the Racetracks.

The purpose of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee is to review, with the input of members from multiple disciplines, information and occurrences relevant to equine and human safety. This allows the Racetrack Risk Management Committee to take action to improve safety at the Racetrack. The purpose of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee is not to impose discipline upon Covered Persons, but rather to facilitate the process of discussion, risk analysis, education and implementation of strategies for injury prevention.

A commenter asked whether all of the members of the committee are required to perform all of the responsibilities outlined in 2121(c).

Another commenter expressed concern that provision was not being made for small groups.

As noted above, a Racetrack may alter the composition of the committee upon approval of the Racetrack Safety Committee. The

Authority further notes that the rule does not require the Safety Director to perform all of the work of the Committee; the various members of the Committee will perform much of the work. The role of the Safety Director is to oversee the Committee's work to make sure that the work is performed in a coordinated manner, and to provide assistance and additional resources where necessary to ensure the tasks of the Committee are thoroughly and efficiently performed. It is anticipated that members of the Committee may perform as sub-groups to assist in accomplishing the Committee's various duties and tasks.

HBPA.

CHRB.

A commenter suggested that Starting Gate Persons and Track Superintendents should be among those persons required to be interviewed after a Catastrophic Injury or Equine Mortality.

The Authority notes that such interviews are covered by the rule, with flexibility to adjust for individual cases; the rule currently requires interviews when appropriate with “Racetrack personnel.”

The Breeders' Cup.

Commenters opined that an attending veterinarian should be a member of the committee.

The Authority believes the committee is best served by the membership of the Regulatory Veterinarian or Association Veterinarian.

THA, Dr. Scott Hay.

2130. Required Safety Personnel

2131. Safety Director

Rule 2131 concerning the Safety Director is modified in several provisions in addition to minor clarifications of terminology. The most significant change is the new provision, establishing a new responsibility for the Safety Director: “(c)(4) Establishing a formal protocol by which health, safety, and welfare issues are reported, investigated, and resolved by the Racetrack. The protocol shall address coordination between racetrack management, Veterinarians, safety stewards, and Stewards, so that all persons involved have a clear understanding of their roles and further action may be taken where appropriate.” This provision tasks the Safety Director with creating a comprehensive protocol that systematizes the methods by which health, safety and welfare issues are addressed and resolved. The provision also requires that the protocol address vital issues concerning how the various officials will cooperate in addressing issues. The protocol ensures that officials may work together in a pre-determined and coordinated way, rather than in an ad hoc manner with no consistent approach.

Commenters have expressed concern that the Safety Director cannot perform all of the duties set forth in the rule.

The rule, however, does not require the Safety Director to perform all of the work of the Committee; the various members of the Committee will perform the work in collaboration. The role of the Safety Director is to oversee the Committee's work to make sure that the work is performed in a coordinated manner, and to provide assistance and additional resources where necessary to ensure the tasks of the Committee are thoroughly and efficiently performed. In response to a comment expressing concern about the Safety Director's oversight of Regulatory and Association Veterinarians,

the Authority emphasizes that the veterinarian's prerogative and medical judgment of equine welfare issues will not be limited or constrained by the Safety Director.

The Jockeys' Guild and a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Paragraph (c)(8) is modified to state that the Safety Director shall be responsible for: “(8) Report[ing] all equine injuries that required equine ambulance assistance and fatalities to the Racetrack's Risk Management Committee and the Authority within 72 hours of an injury, and within 24 hours of a fatality[.]” The provision, suggested by a commenter,

more precisely limits the reporting of equine injuries to those that required ambulance assistance, rather than minor injuries that do not require extensive medical care. The provision also now requires that equine fatalities be reported to the Racetrack Risk Management Committee and the Authority within 24 hours. The reporting of equine fatalities is vital to ensure that Racetrack officials may take prompt action to determine the cause of fatalities and take action to mitigate the possibility of further injuries to Covered Horses on Racetrack grounds. It is important to note that the reporting requirement does not require the filing of a written report; verbal notification satisfies the initial 24-hour reporting requirement.

Tom Robbins.

A commenter asked whether the Safety Director will also be responsible for emergency drills concerning, for example, weather-related events.

In response, the Authority notes that the Safety Director is not charged with personally directing emergency drills, but is charged with the oversight function of ensuring that the drills are conducted pursuant to Rule 2161.

Breeders' Cup.

A commenter urged that the Equine Injury Database be used for the reporting of equine injuries within 24 hours of a fatality, and 72 hours of an injury.

The veterinarians do not have to report to both the Equine Injury Database and the Authority, provided the Racetracks permit the Authority to access the Equine Injury Database. If the Racetrack does not permit access, the reporting must be made directly to the Authority in addition to the Equine Injury Database.

The Jockey Club.

2132. Medical Director

There are several significant additions to Rule 2132. Rule 2132 is modified with the following language: “The Medical Director shall be either a licensed physician, a board-certified athletic trainer, or an individual qualified to perform the duties and responsibilities set forth in this Rule with the assistance of the Authority's National Medical Director.” While the engagement of a licensed physician is ideal, this is not possible at this time at some Racetracks. The rule allows, for example, a qualified medical provider (such as a nurse practitioner) to perform the duties of the Medical Director, with the proviso that the Medical Director shall have the assistance of the Authority's National Medical Director in performing the duties.

An additional significant provision is added to the duties of the Medical Director. The provision states that the Medical Director shall: “(c)(3) Require notification of Human Injuries during racing or training to the Authority's National Medical Director within 1 hour of transport of the individual(s) from the scene of the injury.” This rule will enhance the safety of Riders by ensuring that HISA's National Medical Director is informed of Human Injuries very quickly, so that the Medical Director can assist in providing any services needed by the Rider or the medical responders. A commenter questioned whether 1 hour was realistic, recommending 24 hours instead.

The Authority disagrees with this view, and notes that all the rule requires is “notification,” which can include verbal notification. No written report or communication is required to satisfy the 1-hour requirement.

Tom Robbins.

An early draft of Rule 2132 implied that all human injuries be reported

under the rule. Commenters noted,

and the Authority agrees, that the reporting of all human injuries that occur at a Racetrack is impractical. The definition of Human Injuries was therefore modified to limit Human Injuries to those injuries requiring medical attention and that may restrict a Covered Person's current or future participation or employment in racing.

Tom Robbins, HBPA.

In the provision requiring the Racetracks to reimburse the Authority for the costs associated with the employment of the Medical Director, the clause that provides for the reimbursement to be based on “total handle wagered in the applicable state in the prior calendar year” has been removed. This change is made to conform to substantive changes in the Authority's Rule 8500 Series concerning the allocation of costs.

A provision is modified to state that the Medical Director shall “develop and implement a process for certifying a Jockey's fitness to resume riding.” This clarifies that the Medical Director is not required to certify the Jockey's fitness to ride, but instead is charged with the development of the certification process.

A provision is modified to require the reporting of Human Injuries to the Racetrack Risk Management Committee and the Authority within 24 hours rather than the current requirement of 72 hours. This allows the Racetrack Risk Management Committee and the Authority's National Medical Director to review the factors contributing to the injury more rapidly.

Finally, a provision is added that requires the Safety Director to coordinate with the Authority's National Medical Director. This ensures effective coordination between these two officials in addressing Human Injuries.

2133. Stewards

In Rule 2133, paragraph (b) is amended to state: “Unless the Authority determines that the applicable individual is otherwise qualified, to qualify for appointment as a Steward, the appointee shall meet the experience, education, and examination requirements necessary to be accredited by [the Racing Officials Accreditation Program (“ROAP”].”

A commenter expressed opposition to the amended introduction, stating that it might undermine standards of racing experience.

The Authority understands the need for competent and experienced Stewards, and will carefully consider any individual who is not accredited by ROAP.

Dan Fick and ROAP.

A commenter suggested that the term “or contracted with” should be added to Rule 2133(c), which concerns the contractual agreements entered into by the Authority and State Racing Commissions.

This change was made, so that Rule 2133(c) now reads as follows: “The requirements of Rule 2133 for any Steward employed by or contracted with a State Racing Commission are subject to the applicable State Racing Commission electing to enter into an agreement with the Authority.”

CHRB.

2134. Regulatory Veterinarian

Rule 2134 sets forth the requirements and duties concerning Regulatory Veterinarians at the Racetrack. A new proposed rule is added as paragraph (a) which requires Racetracks to ensure that that no fewer than 2 Regulatory Veterinarians (as defined in Rule 1020 and excluding test barn veterinarians) are present at the Racetrack during all live racing. Upon a request and a showing of undue hardship by the Racetrack, the Racetrack Safety Committee may permit a Racetrack to have 1 Regulatory Veterinarian present at the Racetrack during all live racing. Some commenters observed that the shortage of veterinarians nationwide will make it difficult for Racetracks to have 2 Regulatory Veterinarians present at the track.

The Authority recognizes that a shortage exists, and in response to these concerns has added a provision allowing the Racetrack Safety Committee to permit a Racetrack to have 1 Regulatory Veterinarian present at the Racetrack upon a showing of undue hardship. The Racetrack Safety Committee will scrutinize any such request very carefully, and always with the safety of Covered Horses firmly in mind.

ROAP, Washington Horse Racing Commission.

Other commenters questioned how a Racetrack can be charged with controlling the number of Regulatory Veterinarians on the grounds of the Racetrack.

In response, the Authority notes that Racetracks are permitted (and encouraged) to appoint a veterinarian to supplement the duties of the Regulatory Veterinarians and to comply with the requirement in proposed Rule 2134(a). Such veterinarians are referred to as “Lead Veterinarians” and have the same duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the Regulatory Veterinarians under these rules.

ROAP, Mike Hopkins, Joe Wilson.

Paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this rule are modified to clarify that the Regulatory Veterinarians may be contracted or appointed by a State Racing Commission or the Authority, and that Regulatory Veterinarians need only be licensed to practice in the state in which the Regulatory Veterinarian is performing the duties established under the rule, if required in the applicable jurisdiction. A number of commenters expressed viewpoints concerning proposed amendments to this rule, weighing in favor of retaining the requirement that Regulatory Veterinarians must be licensed to practice in the state in which they perform their regulatory duties. The Rule is amended for greater flexibility in light of the nationwide veterinary shortage and accommodates the possibility that a jurisdiction might not require the Regulatory Veterinarians to be licensed by the state in which they perform regulatory duties, in which case no license is required. Of course, if the applicable jurisdiction requires the veterinarian to be licensed in the jurisdiction, this rule does not alter that requirement.

Paragraph (b)(4) is amended to clarify that the Regulatory Veterinarian is restricted from prescribing “medications” for any Covered Horse within the applicable jurisdiction except in cases of emergency, accident, or injury. A comment had noted that Regulatory Veterinarians must be able to prescribe diagnostics; the term “medications” more precisely states the activity intended to be prohibited.

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Paragraph (c) contains changes to the provisions concerning the appointment of a Lead Veterinarian. In those jurisdictions where the state racing commission does not elect to enter into an agreement with the Authority to establish a Regulatory Veterinarian, the Racetrack is required to appoint a Lead Veterinarian to carry out the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the Regulatory Veterinarian under the rules. New language is added to this rule to clarify that even in jurisdictions where the applicable state racing commission does elect to enter into an agreement with the Authority to establish a Regulatory Veterinarian, the Racetrack may still appoint a Veterinarian(s) to serve as the Lead Veterinarian(s) to supplement the duties of the Regulatory Veterinarian(s) and to comply with the requirements in Rule 2134(a). In both cases, the appointment of the Lead

Veterinarian(s) is subject to the Racetrack Safety Committee's approval.

A comment stated that the sharing of a Lead Veterinarian may be impractical in some states in which racing dates overlap.

In response, the Authority notes that nothing in the rule

requires

Racetracks within a state to share a Lead Veterinarian.

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

2135. Responsibilities and Duties of Regulatory Veterinarian

Paragraph (a)(5) of this rule is revised to clarify that the Stewards retain the authority to scratch horses, upon receiving notification from the Regulatory Veterinarian that the horse is injured, ill, otherwise unable to compete due to a medical or health related condition, or poses a hazard to other horses or racing participants. This codifies pre-existing industry practice and is in accord with the preference of several commenters who opined that the Stewards should retain the ultimate authority to scratch horses.

ROAP, Tom Robbins, ROCO, Washington Horse Racing Commission.

Paragraph (a)(7) is revised to clarify that, notwithstanding Rule 2220 (specifying that only Attending Veterinarians may attend to Covered Horses at any location under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission), a Regulatory Veterinarian may provide emergency medical care and effect case transfer to the Attending Veterinarian. This is necessary for the health and safety of Covered Horses. The addition of “training” is intended to cover emergency situations where an Attending Veterinarian is not present on the Racetrack grounds.

Paragraph (a)(9) is amended to state that the Regulatory Veterinarian must “report to the Safety Director and the Authority within 24 hours the names of all Covered Horses who are euthanized or which otherwise die at the meeting and the reasons therefor.” The addition of “and the Authority within 24 hours” is intended to facilitate prompt notice to the Authority of potentially emerging safety situations.

A commenter suggested that the reference to the Safety Director should be deleted from this rule.

The Authority prefers to retain the reference to the Safety Director because regular communication of safety and welfare issues with the Authority is expected and is in the best interest of equine safety and welfare.

1 S/T Racing.

Paragraph (a)(10) is modified as follows: “collaborate with the Safety Director, Chief Veterinarian of the State Department of Agriculture (or comparable State government official), Equine Disease Communication Center (EDCC), and other regulatory agencies to take measures to control communicable or reportable equine diseases.” This provision was developed while considering a comment that suggested the inclusion of the “comparable State government officials” phrase, since states vary as to the specific state officials responsible for the communicable diseases.

Paragraph (b) is amended to clarify that a Regulatory Veterinarian may access Covered Horses on Racetrack grounds, perform inspections of Covered Horses, observe Covered Horses during training activities, and place a Covered Horse on the Veterinarians' List. This codifies pre-existing industry measures intended to reduce the number of injured or at-risk horses participating in racing activities.

Paragraph (c) is modified to permit the Authority to retain additional veterinarians if it determines that the Regulatory Veterinarian identified in the agreement with the Authority requires additional assistance to perform the regulatory duties set out under these rules. The modification is necessary to address situations where a vacancy can be difficult to fill, especially as a stop gap measure, and the Authority may be able to deploy additional veterinary personnel in the short term.

Paragraph (d) is modified to clarify that the Regulatory Veterinarian identified in the agreement with the Authority or, if there is no Regulatory Veterinarian, the Lead Veterinarian has jurisdiction over all veterinarians within the grounds of the Racetrack. A commenter noted that jurisdiction over the Attending Veterinarian should be vested in the Association Veterinarian where there is no Regulatory Veterinarian filing such as role, as in the state of Florida.

In response, the Authority states that the Racetrack can appoint the Association Veterinarian as a Lead Veterinarian, which obviates the concern raised in this comment. However, only the Regulatory Veterinarian may review and consult with the Stewards and State Racing Commission regarding licensing applications under paragraph (d) of this rule.

1 S/T Racing.

2136. Racetrack Safety Officer

Rule 2136 sets out the duties of the Racetrack Safety Officer. This rule contains minor modifications. The rule in paragraph (b) specifies the duties the Safety Officer must carry out, and modifies the prefatory sentence as follows: “The Safety Officer or the Safety Officer's designee shall. . . .” This phrase referring to the Safety Officer's designee is added to make clear that the Safety Officer may designate other individuals to assist in the performance of the specified duties. This addition is in response to concerns expressed by a commenter that the Safety Officer's duties are too expansive.

Under the modified rule, the Safety Officer may enlist assistance in the performance of the prescribed duties.

The Jockeys' Guild.

One of these duties, as set forth in paragraph (b)(5), is modified to state that the Safety Officer shall monitor ambulance and medical personnel protocols for Covered Horses and Riders in cooperation with the Medical Director. This addition is made to emphasize that the Safety Officer will monitor protocols in conjunction with, and with the benefit of, the medical knowledge and expertise of the Medical Director.

Finally, the rule is modified in (b)(8) to specify that the Safety Officer will conduct “HISA registration checks,” rather than “license checks;” the latter term is more applicable to State Racing Commission licenses, whereas registration is a function of the Authority under the Rule 9000 Series.

A commenter observed that the Safety Officer should “either participate in the creation of or be the sole individual to draft standard operating protocols for racetrack safety and equine welfare.”

The Safety Director is charged with the development of the protocols pursuant to Rule 2131(c)(4), but the Safety Officer under Rule 2136(b)(13) may make recommendations to Racetrack management and officials to ensure the safety and welfare of Covered Horses and Riders. The Safety Officer may certainly make recommendations concerning the protocols.

Jeanne Schnell.

2137. Horseshoe Inspector; 2138. Responsibilities and Duties of Horseshoe Inspector; 2139. Horseshoe Inspections

The Authority proposes a set of three new rules aimed at reducing equine injuries and riding-related incidents attributable to noncompliant horseshoes. The first rule, Rule 2137, establishes a requirement on Racetracks (or State Racing Commissions where the applicable State Racing Commission elects to enter into an agreement with the Authority), to employ or contract

with a Horseshoe Inspector (defined in Rule 2010) to perform the duties and responsibilities specified in Rule 2138. The Authority believes it is important to have a designated individual at each Racetrack responsible for inspecting horseshoes and ensuring compliance with the Authority's rules. Not all Racetracks currently have an individual who is solely responsible for inspecting horseshoes prior to racing.

Rule 2137 was originally circulated for informal industry comment in April 2023. That version of the rule required the Horseshoe Inspector to be licensed by the State Racing Commission. The Authority received a comment in response to this rule, noting that this is not a position which is licensed by State Racing Commissions.

The Authority believes that it is likely that the position will require licensure but has revised this rule to only require licensing if such licensing is required in the applicable jurisdiction. In addition to licensing, this rule requires the Horseshoe Inspector to be knowledgeable of matters pertaining to hooves, horseshoes, and the Authority's rules pertaining to these subjects. The rule also includes a continuing education requirement for Horseshoe Inspectors.

HBPA.

The second rule, Rule 2138, sets out the specific responsibilities and duties of the Horseshoe Inspector—that is, conducting inspections of horseshoes and other orthotics on all Covered Horses entered in a Covered Race on Race Day and notifying the Stewards of any Covered Horse that is shod with horseshoes that are not compliant with the Authority's rules. The rule instructs the Horseshoe Inspector to perform additional inspections if requested by the Steward. Involving Stewards in this process provides an additional safeguard as they have the authority to scratch a Covered Horse from a race. Reducing the number of Covered Horses competing with noncompliant shoes will lead to fewer Racetrack incidents and injuries and enhance the overall safety of Covered Riders and Covered Horses.

Finally, Rule 2139 contains the process for pre-race horseshoe inspections. The rule specifies that the trainer of each Covered Horse must present the Covered Horse for inspection on the day of the race and that the Horseshoe Inspector's inspection must include, at a minimum, identification of the Covered Horse and examination of the horseshoe and other orthotics and documentation of features relating to a violation of horseshoe rules of the Authority. If, prior to starting a Race, the Horseshoe Inspector is unable to make a determination, or determines that a Covered Horse is wearing non-compliant horseshoes, the Horseshoe Inspector shall notify the Stewards prior to the Covered Horse leaving the paddock. Again, this measure ensures that the Stewards are notified of Covered Horses that should not be competing and can take the appropriate steps to remove the horse from the race. Intervention on the part of the Horseshoe Inspector or Steward has the potential to prevent or reduce the number of incidents and injuries associated with the use of shoes that are not compliant with the Authority's rules.

2140. Racehorse Inspections and Monitoring

2141. Veterinary Inspections

Rule 2141 establishes that Veterinary inspections shall be performed by the Regulatory Veterinarians on all Covered Horses entered in a Race, and that such inspections shall include the items listed in Rule 2142. The current rule specifies that if the Regulatory Veterinarian determines that a Covered Horse is unfit for competition, or if the Regulatory Veterinarian is unable to make a determination of racing soundness, the Regulatory Veterinarian shall have the unconditional authority to scratch the Covered Horse from the race, and shall notify the Stewards that the Covered Horse shall be scratched.

The rule is modified in paragraph (a) to change the phrase “unfit for competition” to “unsound for competition,” because the word “unsound” is a more holistic veterinary term that embraces a wider range of conditions that could potentially compromise the horse's safety and welfare. In addition, the rule is modified to state that if the Regulatory Veterinarian determines that the Covered Horse should be scratched for the specified reasons articulated in the rule, the Regulatory Veterinarian shall notify the Stewards that the horse shall be scratched, and the Stewards shall then scratch the horse from the race. This change was suggested and supported by commenters,

because it accords with existing state racing commission rules which provide only the Stewards with the authority to scratch a horse from a race.

Tom Robbins, ROCO.

2142. Assessment of Racing Soundness

Rule 2142 details the various reports, inspections and procedures that promote equine welfare and safety. A commenter suggested the removal of a provision in the modified rule as originally drafted that required the Layoff Report to be submitted not less than 30 days prior to entry.

The Racetrack Safety Committee considered this suggestion and removed the provision; the committee concluded that the Racetrack entry schedule (under which entries routinely close several days in advance of the race) provides adequate time for the Regulatory Veterinarian to review the lay-off reports.

Gary Palmisano.

Another commenter asked whether the Regulatory Veterinarian should be required to sign off on the horse prior to entry.

The California rule requires an additional regulatory inspection. The intent of the rule is to mirror more closely that in place in the Mid-Atlantic region, which is to require that the information be made available to the Regulatory Veterinarian to review. The intent is not to require an additional pre-entry regulatory inspection.

Tom Robbins.

Concerning paragraph 2142(b), which governs post-entry screening, the modification requires Layoff Reports to be reviewed (in accord with the new provision concerning Layoff Reports in paragraph (a)). The modification also adds a sentence which states: “Additional physical inspection and observation in motion may be performed by the Regulatory Veterinarian.” This addition makes clear that the Regulatory Veterinarian may exercise the discretion to expand the inspection as needed to ensure the safety and well-being of the horse under inspection. At the suggestion of commenters,

the Authority removed a provision that required the Racetrack Safety Committee to approve any additional inspection. This allows the Regulatory Veterinarian to exercise immediate discretion according to the Regulatory Veterinarian's professional judgement concerning the horse.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Commenters requested that the Authority develop a reporting form that will provide the medical history of all horses entered, to aid in the review of the last 30 days of medical history as required in the current rule.

The Authority agrees and is working on developing the form.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

A commenter asked whether hindlimbs should be included in the current requirement that digital

palpation be performed on forelimbs.

The Racetrack Safety Committee will consider this proposed requirement in future rulemaking. Nothing in the proposed rule prohibits a Regulatory Veterinarian from palpating hindlimbs.

Tom Robbins.

The current rule in paragraph (b)(3) requires that a report summarizing the results of pre-race inspections shall be submitted to the Authority on the day of the inspection. A commenter suggested that the Responsible Person be provided a copy of the report immediately in the event of a scratch by the Regulatory Veterinarian, so that all parties are kept informed as to the horses' condition.

The Authority will consider this suggestion in future rulemaking.

THA.

A minor modification is made to the current rule which requires that a Covered Horse be presented for inspection with bandages removed, and with legs in clean and dry condition. The current rule specifies that Covered Horses “may not be placed in ice,” to which the modification adds the clarifying language that the horse may not be placed in ice “until the Regulatory Veterinarian has completed the veterinary inspection.” This clarification is made in response to inquiries concerning the meaning of the rule. The rule makes clear that the practice is permitted once the regulatory inspection is complete.

With regard to various reporting requirements in various portions of the rule, a comment suggested that reporting be accomplished through InCompass, for the sake of efficiency.

Currently, the Authority is encouraging Racetracks to provide the Authority with access to their InCompass Equine Examination modules so that Regulatory Veterinarians do not have to report to both the Authority and InCompass. Under proposed Rule 2115(d), Racetracks will be required to authorize third-party system providers to provide this type of information directly to the Authority.

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

2143. Racehorse Monitoring

Rule 2143 provides the procedures by which necessary vaccinations of Covered Horses are monitored. This is very important in the prevention or mitigation of the transmission of infectious diseases, which benefits the health and safety of Covered Horses. Paragraph (a) of the rule is modified to specify that the paragraph applies to all horses entering Racetrack grounds “directly from any location or facility other than a Designated Equine Facility or licensed racing facility within the same state as the receiving Racetrack.” (The new proposed Rule 2144 establishes the concept of Designated Equine Facilities and will be discussed further under Rule 2144 below). The purpose of this exemption for Designated Equine Facilities and licensed racing facilities within the same state as the receiving Racetrack is to reduce the compliance burden on Responsible Persons and Attending Veterinarians when horses are stabled at auxiliary training centers where the risk of infectious disease transmission is deemed low.

The rule is also modified to require a “current” health certificate; the modification is necessary to clarify questions as to whether horses would be accepted from these facilities without any health certificate at all.

The rule is modified at the suggestion of a commenter

to permit the acceptance of a current health certificate or, in the alternative, “other health documentation sufficient for importation to the United States and approved by the [United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“USDA-APHIS”)] representatives.” This phrase is added because horses at times arrive to race in the United States from foreign countries and are under USDA-APHIS surveillance, which includes surveillance for signs of infectious disease. This surveillance is documented and is considered to sufficiently mitigate the risk of infectious disease transmission.

Breeders' Cup.

Finally, the rule is modified to impose the requirements upon “Pony Horses” as well as Covered Horses, because Pony Horses often travel with, are stabled next to, and work in close proximity to Covered Horses. As such, transmission of infectious disease is increased. Extending the requirement to Pony Horses will mitigate that risk.

Concerning current Rule 2143(a)(1), which requires a certificate of veterinary inspection (“CVI”) within the prior 5 days, or fewer days if high risk situations dictate, a commenter opined that “5-day health certificates do not work in many situations; consider something intrastate or go back to 30 days.”

In response, the Authority notes that the Designated Equine Facility was a compromise created to reduce the compliance burden of Rule 2143(a)(1) in those situations deemed to be at lower risk for transmission of infectious disease while still affording a reasonable level of protection to Racetracks and stakeholders who have a shared financial interest in keeping the stable area and racing program safeguarded from infectious disease outbreak.

HBPA.

Another commenter opined that there “should be explicit language allowing the racetrack to require in-state horses to provide a CVI in the face of an outbreak.”

In response, the Authority replies that there is nothing in the rule that would prohibit this, and notes that the requirement was implemented by several Racetracks in 2023 during periods of heightened infectious disease concern.

1/ST Racing.

A commenter expressed frustration with the varying health certificate rules in different jurisdictions.

The Authority understands the issue, but adopting, for example, a uniform flu-rhino requirement would eliminate the ability of Racetracks and state Departments of Agriculture to respond with shorter vaccination window requirements in high-risk situations. These entities believe this flexibility is needed to manage outbreaks of disease of economic importance to protect the equine industry at large.

Dr. Scott Hay.

A new paragraph (b) is included in Rule 2143, which states as follows: “(b) The applicable Racetrack shall maintain records that document that the requirements of Rule 2143(a) have been satisfied for each Covered Horse entering racetrack grounds. Such records shall be subject to inspection and audit by the Authority.” This provision is added in response to stakeholder requests for clarification about whose responsibility it is to maintain these records beyond the time of entry into the stable gate.

A commenter asked: “Is the racetrack responsible for maintaining records of all vaccinations or is the trainer themselves? Isn't the trainer responsible for adding them to each individual horse record through HISA?”

In response, the Authority notes that Rule 2143 does not relieve the Responsible Person from the duty to keep the vaccines current in the horse's health record in the HISA portal. The Racetrack, in turn, is responsible for maintaining records that document that the horse's vaccination status was verified when the horse entered the Racetrack grounds.

Minnesota Racing Commission.

A new paragraph (c) is added which states as follows:

(c) Exemption for vaccination requirements. Covered Horses that are imported to the United States to participate in a specific race or races or to enter race training in the United States may, upon application to the Authority, be exempted from the vaccination requirements, with the exception of requirements for Influenza and Rhinopneumonitis, for the following periods:

(1) if the Covered Horse is leaving the United States immediately following the specific race or races, then for the period of USDA temporary importation or transit to an approved USDA location, or

(2) if the Covered Horse is remaining in the United States, then for the period of 14 days following the specific race or races, or from arrival at a Racetrack, whichever is longer.

The proposed provision governs the health certificate rules for imported horses, with certain exemptions from vaccine requirements as specified. This takes into account the fact that certain vaccines are not available in some foreign nations, and a temporary exemption process in the rule provides a mechanism by which imported horses enter the U.S. Department of Agriculture quarantine facility; the rule provides a window of time within which any vaccines that the horse lacks can be administered once the horse arrives at the Racetrack. A commenter noted: “Just want to make sure that should such foreign horses stay beyond 14 days if okay. Del Mar had a Japanese horse stay beyond 14 days post Breeders' Cup that remained under USDA observation/isolation before shipping to run In Hong Kong.”

In response, the Authority notes that extensions may be granted by the Racetrack Safety Committee on a case-by-case basis upon consideration of the circumstances.

Tom Robbins.

Commenters opined that the vaccination exemption for imported horses should not include EHV/EIV.

The Authority agrees, and the rule was changed accordingly. This is because Equine Influenza and Equine Rhinopneumonitis are the two respiratory diseases of greatest concern in racehorses.

1/ST Racing and a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the current rule (now restyled as paragraphs (d) and (e)), enumerate the items of information that must be submitted to the Authority by the Racetrack with respect to each Covered Horse on its grounds, and each Covered Horse leaving its grounds. This rule is modified to state in each case that the information must only be provided “upon request by the Authority.” This change is made to clarify that Racetracks are not required to upload this detailed information on a daily basis to the Authority.

2144. Designated Equine Facility

A new proposed Rule 2144 will establish a procedure by which Racetracks may seek to designate equine facilities as Designated Equine Facilities under the rules. The reason for the adoption of this rule is to balance the interest in safeguarding the equine population from infectious disease outbreak with the compliance burden imposed by a health certificate requirement.

The proposed rule states in full:

(a) To qualify an equine facility as a Designated Equine Facility, the applicable Racetrack shall certify to the Authority in such form as the Authority may prescribe that it has reviewed and determined that the biosecurity protocols and procedures of the Designated Equine Facility are consistent with the biosecurity protocols and procedures of the Racetrack.

(b) The applicable Racetrack shall maintain records that document that the requirements of Rule 2144(a) have been satisfied for each Designated Equine Facility, including but not limited to the written biosecurity protocols and procedures of the Designated Equine Facility. Such records shall be subject to inspection and audit by the Authority.

In essence, the rule allows Racetracks to designate certain facilities as exempt from specified health certificate requirements, on the condition that the Racetrack certifies to the Authority that it has confirmed that the biosecurity protocols at the facility are consistent with those at the Racetrack.

A commenter maintained that if the Authority chooses “to certify Designated Training Facilities that are not owned by a racetrack, [the Authority] should be responsible for certifying their biosecurity protocols and oversight of compliance.”

The commenter further asserted that “[a]s an independent entity, the racetrack has no authority over their operations or right of entry.”

In response, the Authority notes that it will not be certifying Designated Equine Facilities, though it will, as part of a Racetrack's Accreditation process, review the records referenced in paragraph (b) of this rule. The risk assessment and Designation determination is left to the Racetrack, and Racetracks are free to require 5-day health certificates (or lesser, in high-risk situations) for horses coming from any property at any time. A commenter stated: “Please note, not all training facilities are affiliated with Covered Racetracks. Will HISA be recognizing and allowing horses to run off of training facilities that are not affiliated or designated by Covered Racetracks? Regardless if the training facility is affiliated with a Racetrack or if it is independent operation, there are certain safety precautions and protocols that must be adhered to, similar to a Racetrack. Additionally, the Authority should be reviewing and approving all protocols and procedures of the training facilities, and not just those pertaining to the biosecurity.”

In response, the Authority notes that the Racetrack Safety Committee considered the risk assessment with regard to nearby, intrastate facilities was best left to the Racetrack operators whose familiarity with the local landscape and ability to respond quickly to emerging diseases exceeds that of the Authority. The alternative was to keep the original 5-day health certificate intact for all horses coming from off-site, and the Racetrack Safety Committee felt the creation of the Designated Equine Facility was a reasonable compromise.

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing. A previous version of this proposed rule referred to the facilities contemplated in this rule as “Designated Training Facilities.”

Id.

The Jockeys' Guild.

Another commenter stated: “Designated Training Facilities should be subject to their own accreditation process, tailored to that particular circumstance. As the Racetrack Safety and Antidoping and Medication Control Programs continue to develop, it is very likely that owners and trainers will relocate their Covered Horses to such facilities in order to avoid the increased protocols being observed on Racetrack grounds. This calls for regulation of such facilities in greater depth which will, in turn, bring with it increased levels of safety and integrity protections while also providing further sources of data and information for the Authority's programs.”

In response, the Authority notes the intent of the comment, and does not disagree in principle. However, the comment does not appear to be directly relevant to the creation of a compromise proposed solution to the requirement of a 5-day health certificate in certain situations.

The Jockey Club.

2150. Racetrack and Racing Surface Monitoring and Maintenance

2151. Data Collection, Recordkeeping and Submission

The Authority is proposing minor clarifying language to this rule.

2152. Testing Methods

The Authority is not proposing any modifications to this rule.

2153. Racetrack Facilities

Rule 2153 is modified with the addition of the following requirement in paragraph (b)(2): “The top of the inner and outer rails on dirt and turf courses must be at least 40 inches but not more than 50 inches above the top of the race surface.”

Commenters expressed concerns about the reasonable allowances for variations in rail height.

The Authority believes that the 10-inch span for compliance with the top inner and outer rails on dirt and turf courses provides considerable latitude for variation. In response to a comment concerning the sources of information concerning rail height,

the Authority states that it consulted extensively with experienced racetrack superintendents in specifying the appropriate dimensions.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Mike Hopkins.

A commenter expressed the view that more precise specifications concerning metrics, measurement devices, and time and space intervals should be prescribed in the rule.

The Authority will be considering all requirements in the course of its ongoing study and analysis of Racetrack facility requirements and their relationship to equine and rider safety.

CHRB.

A current provision under new paragraph (d)(2) requires protective padding on starting gates; the modification adds Riders and Starting Gate Persons to the persons whose safety is to be ensured. This addition is made to ensure that the specific safety requirements of these persons be considered when addressing padding requirements.

Commenters asked whether there should be a requirement for backup starting gate batteries on Racetrack grounds.

The Authority's rule requires a functioning starting gate; track management is given the latitude to determine how that shall be accomplished, whether by using backup batteries or other functionalities.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing; Breeders Cup.

A modification of the paragraph clarifies the requirement that the Racetracks have in place a written plan for the removal of the starting gate after the start of each Race in a safe and timely manner. The modification will also require the plan to be reviewed annually. This further enhances the safety of starting gate operation and procedures.

An important new modification now states: “(8) A Racetrack shall ensure there is at least 1 Starting Gate Person present for each Covered Horse starting in a Covered Horserace.” Although some commenters expressed concern about complying with the requirement,

the requirement is a vital component of ensuring the safety of all persons working at the starting gate.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing; Mike Hopkins.

This new language was suggested by the Jockeys' Guild.

A new rule is added stating as follows: (f) The Racetrack shall provide a suitable area for jogging claimed horses in or near the Test Barn or, if approved by the Authority, a secured area used for claimed horse exams. The jogging area shall be of sufficient length to jog the claimed horse in hand in a straight line of not fewer than 5 strides and have consistent, firm, and level footing, and shall be out of the view of persons not authorized in the Test Barn or secured area. The purpose of the rule is to provide adequate space for the jogging of claimed horses. The “out-of-view requirement” is a component of maintaining the integrity of the examination.

A commenter expressed the view that the emergency warning system should be more specifically defined in Rule 2153(d)(1) of the current rule (now restyled as paragraph (e)(1)).

The Authority requires an emergency warning system to be in place, but the rule properly allows Racetracks the discretion to conform to the rule requirements as local track conditions dictate.

The Jockeys' Guild.

2154. Racetrack Surface Monitoring

In addition to minor terminological changes, the language in Rule 2154(b) is modified to more clearly state that Racetracks shall perform pre-meet inspections on surfaces; the current language does not specify the person or entity charged with performing the inspections.

Rule 2154(d) is modified to explicitly state that the surface equipment inventory, surface maintenance logs, and surface material addition or renovation logs specified in the current rule are to be documented daily and uploaded weekly by the Racetrack to an electronic database designated by the Authority; the current language does not make clear to whom the information is submitted, and the rule will now establish the timing of the documentation and upload requirements, rather than leaving this unspecified.

At the suggestion of commenters,

the words “and speed” are added to the specified contents of the daily surface maintenance logs addressed in Rule 2154(d)(1). Additionally, the words “material specifications” are added to the documentation requirements concerning additions to surfaces set forth in Rule 2154(d)(2). These are minor modifications intended to ensure that all important informational items are included within the requirements of these rules.

Dan Fick and ROAP.

2160. Emergency Preparedness

2161. Emergency Drills

Rule 2161 governing emergency drills is modified to require emergency protocols to be reviewed periodically during each Race Meet, in addition to prior to the Race Meet as required under the current rule. Modifications also add Starting Gate Person injury and medical emergencies to the list of emergencies to be included in the protocols, and the term “Jockey” is deleted in favor of the term “Rider” in two provisions, widening the ambit of the injury scenarios that must be anticipated and included in the protocols. These modifications will benefit Covered Horses and Riders by enhancing a Racetrack's response to the emergencies specified in the rule.

2162. Catastrophic Injury

Rule 2162 concerning Catastrophic Injury is modified with minor changes in terminology. A modification deletes a provision that currently requires communication to the public to be a component of the protocols required in the rule. The need for communication is difficult to specify when Racetracks are responding to an emergency, and may have little information to provide until the situation is assessed.

2163. Fire Safety

This rule is unchanged.

2164. Hazardous Weather

Rule 2164 is modified to include a new provision requiring Racetracks to

comply with State Racing Commission rules governing the delay or cancellation of races due to inclement weather, extreme heat, extreme cold, lightning or other hazardous racing conditions. In the absence of state rules, Racetracks are required, in conjunction with the Racetrack's Stewards, Jockeys, and Horsemen, to develop Racetrack-specific protocols for the delay or cancellation of races due to inclement weather, extreme heat, extreme cold, lightning or other hazardous racing conditions. The terms “extreme heat” and “extreme cold” were added at the suggestion of a commenter to the list of environmental conditions that must be addressed in the hazardous weather protocols that are developed under the rule.

The terms cover extremes of weather that are prevalent at some Racetracks. In addition, new provisions are added to provide a structured method by which Air Quality Index may lead to a cessation of racing. Air quality is an important consideration in preserving the health and safety of Covered Horses and Riders. The Authority will consider in future rulemaking suggested provisions provided by a commenter concerning lightning protocols.

ROCO.

The Jockeys' Guild.

2165. Infectious Disease Management

Rule 2165 is largely unchanged, except for the modification of the word “symptoms” to “signs” in paragraph (b). A particular condition of a Covered Horse may be difficult initially to identify as symptom of a particular infectious disease. “Signs” refers only to an observed physical condition or behavior. The Authority is also proposing a modification to paragraph (d) to expand the reporting requirements in the event of a disease outbreak at the Racetrack. The proposed modification will now require reporting to the Authority in addition to the applicable state official.

2166. Human Ambulance Support

The Authority proposes several modifications to its human ambulance rule. These modifications were the subject of considerable debate and discussion, and this revised rule has undergone numerous iterations in response to important and thoughtful comments submitted by industry stakeholders over the last few months. All of the proposed changes are intended to improve the efficiency and speed of the medical response to an on-track riding incident, which, in turn, improves the health and safety of all racing participants, including Covered Persons and Covered Horses.

A new proposed rule is added as paragraph (a), which will require Racetracks to ensure that no fewer than 2 properly staffed and equipped Advanced Life Support (“ALS”) ambulances or ALS adapted vehicles are present at the Racetrack during training and racing hours. This is in accord with a comment submitted by the Jockeys' Guild. ALS ambulances are staffed by a minimum of 1 paramedic and 1 emergency medical technician, who are trained in a variety of first aid and resuscitation techniques. The Authority recognizes the economic burden this requirement may place on Racetracks, and in response to these concerns has added a provision allowing the Racetrack Safety Committee to permit a Racetrack to have 1 ALS ambulance or ALS adapted vehicle present during racing and training hours. The Racetrack Safety Committee will scrutinize any such request very carefully, and always with the safety of Riders and Covered Horses firmly in mind.

Paragraph (c) requires Racetracks that operate a training track in addition to a main track to provide at least 1 of the following medical response vehicles dedicated to the training track during training hours: 1 ALS ambulance, ALS adapted vehicle, Basic Life Support (“BLS”) ambulance or BLS adapted vehicle. Requiring a medical response unit to be present on the training track is necessary to effectively and swiftly respond to medical events and incidents that take place at the training track. The Authority again recognizes the economic burden this may place on Racetracks, and in response to these concerns has provided tracks with some flexibility as to the type of ambulance or adapted vehicle present at the track.

Paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) require the tracks to develop and implement (1) a training program for all ambulance staff to ensure they are familiar with and adequately trained on the unique safety and incident response issues present in horseracing; (2) protocols for incidents involving injuries to more than one Covered Person during the same race; and (3) an incentive program to retain skilled and certified ambulance staff experienced in the medical response issues present in horseracing. The Authority believes these measures are critical to ensure on-site medical staff are properly trained and experienced in the unique safety and incident response issues associated with horseracing. Commenters noted that mandating creation of an incentive program for retaining personnel is an overreach into the business operations of the Racetrack.

The Authority appreciates this comment and recognizes that incentive programs can take many forms. Thus, the Authority has intentionally left it to the tracks to identify the type(s) and details of the incentive program that will be most effective for that track.

Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Finally, paragraph (h) imposes a requirement on tracks to have an ALS ambulance or ALS adapted vehicle to follow the field at a safe distance during the running of races. The Authority received comments expressing concern over mandating the use of a chase vehicle without accounting for poor weather conditions or narrow Racetrack.

The Authority appreciates and agrees with these commenters and has modified the rule to clarify the steps the track should take in the event Racetrack surface conditions prevent the ALS ambulance or ALS adapted vehicle from safely following the racing field.

Mike Hopkins, Tracks.

2167. Rider Injury Reporting Procedure

Rule 2167 is modified to change the title of the rule from “Accident Reporting System” to “Rider Injury Reporting Procedure” as this better identifies the subjects addressed in this rule.

The rule is also modified to specify that State Racing Commissions that enter into an agreement with the Authority shall develop the procedures outlined in the rule, rather than the Racetracks. The term “Rider” will replace “Jockey and exercise rider,” and the modification specifies that data collected under the rule shall be submitted to the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, in addition to the Authority. This change ensures that the Racetrack Risk Management Committee is provided with Rider injury data, a critical element in the Committee's endeavor to ensure the safety of Riders and Covered Horses. A final change is the inclusion of “safety equipment used” in the listing of data elements to be collected.

The Jockeys' Guild asked several important questions concerning how the data will be collected and stored. In any Rider injury situation, the first responders and racetrack safety personnel will have available data and information that is submitted by the Jockey to the Authority's electronic platform designated for collection and storage of Jockey eligibility documentation. This system is designed for use at the scene of the injury for

entry of data concerning the Jockey and the circumstances of the injury. The system will provide an accident report form into which injury information will be entered in detail. The Jockey's records will be stored in a database maintained by the electronic platform referenced above. It will also be available to the Authority for use in further analysis of issues pertaining to Jockeys and Covered Horses. The Jockeys' Guild asked if the information may be shared with the Guild. The Authority is willing to provide the information, provided the transfer is authorized by the Jockey and in compliance with all applicable laws.

2168. Equine Ambulance

Several modifications are proposed for this rule to establish specified performance and equipment requirements. The requirements specify that the ambulance must be able to operate in all weather conditions, that it is properly equipped to stabilize distal limb injuries, and that it is capable of removing a recumbent horse from the racetrack and safely transporting the horse off of association grounds. These requirements will enhance the safety of Covered Horses by ensuring that the ambulance is properly equipped to respond effectively to any equine injury.

2169. Paddock Safety

Rule 2169 is amended to specify that when State Racing Commissions, rather than racetracks, enter into an agreement with the Authority, the State Racing Commissions shall ensure that the protocols outlined in the rule are in place. This provides greater flexibility to the rule, and allows State Racing Commissions that agree to do so to perform the duties in Rule 2169.

2170. Necropsies

Rule 2170 is modified significantly. The current rule states that “field necropsies are strongly discouraged.” (In the racing industry, “field necropsies” means necropsies performed at the Racetrack.) Field necropsies are extremely rare today and are not favored. The modified rule specifies that necropsies shall be performed at a laboratory. The rule mandates necropsies to be performed on all Covered Horses that die or are euthanized on Racetrack grounds. In addition, the rule is extended to include all horses that die or are euthanized due to, or related to, a musculoskeletal injury within 72 hours of leaving Racetrack grounds. The rule specifies musculoskeletal injuries because these injuries are usually sustained as a result of high-speed training and racing. If the horse leaves the Racetrack after sustaining the injuries, a necropsy must be performed if the horse dies or is euthanized within 72 hours. The 72-hour benchmark is an industry standard; for example, the existing Equine Injury Database by InCompass operates according to a 72-hour reporting criteria for many types of injuries. The 72-hour reporting requirement does not apply to other types of injuries. If, for example, a horse leaves a Racetrack and dies or is euthanized soon afterward due to colic (which has nothing to do with racing and might as easily develop on a farm), a necropsy is required only if the horse dies or is euthanized on Racetrack grounds. Several Racetracks encouraged the Authority to include the musculoskeletal injuries 72-hour specification, and the Authority agrees.

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

The modified rule requires Racetracks to establish standard operating procedures that specify various elements of necropsy procedure, including contact and coordination between persons and organizations necessary to perform the necropsy, transportation options, secure storage procedures, sound infection control practices, and procedures for reporting necropsy findings.

The modified rule requires Racetracks, or State Racing Commissions that have an agreement with the Authority, to coordinate with a diagnostic laboratory that performs necropsies. A contract is not required because, as noted by several Racetrack commenters, “it is difficult to require a contract between a state laboratory and the racetrack. Simply, the diagnostic laboratory chosen for a particular necropsy is often based upon volume of horses that can be examined. Some facilities are very limited in the number of horses they can take at one time. This often necessitates sending other horses to another facility. Mandating a contract decreases flexibility in these instances and will lead to an increase in field necropsies which are less effective.”

The requirement in the rule to coordinate with a diagnostic laboratory that performs necropsies means that arrangements concerning means of communication, transportation, and intake procedures must be established. In some states, laboratories may lack the resources necessary to conduct musculoskeletal injury examinations; in this case, the rule authorizes Racetracks and/or diagnostic laboratories to contract with a laboratory that specializes in musculoskeletal injury racehorse examinations. The rule requires initial necropsy findings and subsequent reports to be filed with the Regulatory Veterinarian, the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, and the Authority within 72 hours of receipt.

Id.

The modified rule imposes the cost of necropsies upon “those persons who are responsible for necropsy costs pursuant to existing state rules. In jurisdictions that do not provide for necropsy costs or address the responsibility for payment, the Racetrack shall be responsible for payment.” Some commenters expressed that Racetracks should not have to bear some or any of the costs of necropsies.

Nationwide, Racetracks do bear much of the cost, though states have varying rules and agreements by which the Racetracks, state racing commissions, and horsemen's groups share the cost together. While the Racetracks do bear the cost in the absence of state rules or agreements, nothing in the rule inhibits Racetracks from entering into such agreements.

ROCO, Joe Wilson.

Necropsies are a vital source of information in the effort to prevent equine fatalities. The information obtained from musculoskeletal injury examinations can help determine the cause of breakdowns and injuries, and can lead to the discovery or enhancement of preventive measures. The necropsy rule as modified will ensure that necropsies are performed effectively and efficiently, and will thereby benefit Covered Horses.

2180. Safety Training and Continuing Education

2181. Uniform National Trainers Test

This rule is unchanged, except for the capitalization of the word “State” and additional language clarifying that Trainers shall be knowledgeable of the rules set out in the Racetrack Safety Rule and the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program.

2182. Continuing Education

Several modifications are proposed for Rule 2182 which establishes continuing education (“CE”) requirements. The rule is modified to make clear that Jockeys and Exercise Riders are required to complete at least 2 hours of safety and rider protocols on an annual basis. Paragraph (4) concerning CE for Stewards is modified to refer generally to continuing education programs that might be approved by the Authority, rather than

to the specialized ROAP. ROAP is approved by the Authority and provides high quality CE programs; the modification will allow the Authority to identify other useful CE programs as well.

ROAP suggested the continued use of the term “ROAP,” but the Authority believes the better course is to avoid identifying a particular program by name, since a number of programs may ultimately be identified.

New requirements are added for Safety Directors and for the Farriers and Horseshoe Inspectors who will have roles and responsibilities under new Rules 2137, 2138, and 2139, which together create a structured procedure for horseshoe inspections. Minor changes include the modification to refer to the new proposed defined term “Starting Gate Persons,” rather than starters and assistant starters.

Several commenters asked who will provide the CE and monitor compliance, sanction non-compliance, and set the curriculum.

The Authority is developing a CE program that will be a component of the registration portal and will be made available to Covered Persons participating in states where the State Racing Commission has not entered into an agreement with the Authority to implement the provision of Rule 2182. It will allow the entry and monitoring of CE credit hours for the convenience and benefit of all Covered Persons required to complete CE hours.

ROCO, HPBA, Washington Horse Racing Commission.

A state racing commission asked if it would be required to provide CE, rather than identify existing training opportunities.

100

The current rule and modified proposed rule both require a State Racing Commission that has an agreement with the Authority to “identify existing, or provide locally, training opportunities.” The State Racing Commission may fully comply with the rule by identifying CE rather than providing it.

100

Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

2183. Sexual Harassment Prevention

Rule 2183 is a new provision requiring Covered Racetracks to implement and enforce a sexual harassment and non-discrimination policy that offers protection to Covered Persons by prohibiting discriminatory behavior at its facilities. The Authority proposes this new rule in response to reports it received from racing participants pertaining to sexual harassment and discrimination at the Racetrack or in a racing workplace. The reports focused primarily on the absence of an established reporting process for harassing and discriminatory behavior, and other comments touched on a lack of confidence in the reporting system (if any). The Authority aims to address, at least in part, some of these issues by requiring each Racetrack to develop and implement and enforce a sexual harassment and non-discrimination policy that offers protection to Covered Persons by prohibiting discriminatory behavior at its facilities. At a minimum, the policy must define and prohibit sexual harassment and discrimination against Covered Persons within the applicable legal protected classifications and provide an effective process for reporting and investigation of prohibited sexual harassment and discrimination. The policy must also memorialize the Racetrack's authority to impose discipline on any individual found to be in violation of the policy, including but not limited to exclusion from the Racetrack (and all related Racetrack grounds and facilities) and any racing activities.

Several commenters expressed the view that this rule exceeds the scope of the Authority's jurisdiction under the Act.

101

The Authority disagrees. Part of the Authority's statutory mandate is to exercise independent and national authority over the safety, welfare, and integrity of Covered Persons. This rule is consistent with that mandate.

101

See, e.g.,

comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing; comment submitted by Mike Hopkins.

In further support of this Rule, the Authority refers the Federal Trade Commission to a report recently commissioned by controlling bodies of racing in Australia (Racing Victoria Limited, Harness Racing Victoria, and Greyhound Racing Victoria), which demonstrates that harassment and discrimination are widespread in the racing industry and underscores the need for well-defined channels for reporting sexual harassment and discrimination in the racing workplace.

102

See

Racing Integrity Commissioner, Independent Review into Victorian Racing Industry Victim Support and Complaint Processes (Aug. 31, 2023),

available at https://racingintegrity.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/201869/Independent-Review.pdf.

2190. Jockey and Starting Gate Person Health

2191. Drug and Alcohol Testing

Currently, Rule 2191 requires State Racing Commissions electing to enter into an agreement with the Authority to develop and implement a testing program for drugs and alcohol for Jockeys. The rule is modified to add Starting Gate Persons to the testing program. Starting Gate Persons perform a vital role in handling horses and loading them into the starting gate. Ensuring that Starting Gate Persons are not impaired is important for their safety and the safety of Jockeys and Covered Horses. The Jockeys' Guild urged that the program be required for additional categories of racing officials.

103

The Authority agrees that this is an important proposal to consider in future rulemaking. At present, the most immediate need is to ensure that both Jockeys and Starting Gate Persons are subject to drug and alcohol testing, and that will be accomplished under the terms of the proposed rule modification.

103

The Jockeys' Guild.

2192. Concussion Management

A minor modification is proposed for Rule 2192, Concussion Management. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended to make clear that the requirement that Jockeys must acknowledge in writing that they have been made aware of the Concussion protocols is an annual requirement, rather than a requirement to review the protocols “in place for the facility at which they are riding;” the quoted phrase will be deleted in the modification.

The Jockeys' Guild stressed the importance of developing a unified national concussion management protocol with return to ride guidelines established by medical experts in concussions. The Jockeys' Guild emphasized that the return to ride protocol should operate to clear a Jockey to return to riding for all Jockey injuries, and not just concussions. The Authority's return to ride protocol does embrace all Jockey injuries. The Authority recognizes the vital importance of these components of racing safety. The Authority has developed a national concussion management protocol, as well as a return to ride protocol in collaboration with the third-party medical records storage organization with which the Authority has partnered. Both protocols are currently being implemented nationwide.

2193. Insurance

Rule 2193 requires Racetracks, in states that do not afford Jockeys workers compensation insurance, to maintain primary accidental medical expense coverage for all Jockeys. The rule is modified to clarify that the insurance covers training as well as racing. In addition, the modified rule will require that the current policy's declaration page shall be posted in the Jockeys'

quarters prior to the beginning of the racing season.

Medical insurance is a vital component of ensuring the well-being of Jockeys, and the extension of medical insurance to training activities is a natural and beneficial extension of insurance coverage. The majority of Racetracks across the United States already provide this coverage, but the rule makes it an explicit and uniform requirement. The requirement that the declaration page be posted in the Jockey's quarters allows Jockeys to review the coverage, and to obtain the name of the insurance company involved in case a Jockey wishes to inquire further about coverage.

2200. Specific Rules and Requirements of the Racetrack Safety Program

2210. Purpose and Scope

The Authority proposes minor stylistic modifications to this rule along with elimination of the preemption language referenced in paragraph (c) as it is a general statement of law that need not be included in this rule.

2215. Welfare and Deprivation of Care

The Authority proposes this new rule to establish a prohibition on abusive practices, neglect and mistreatment of Covered Horses that is not otherwise covered by the rules and to incorporate existing industry principles and standards codified in the National Thoroughbred Racing Association Safety and Integrity Alliance Code of Standards and the Association of Racing Commissioners International Model Rules.

Commenters requested that the Authority describe with particularity the types of conduct prohibited under this rule.

104

Abuse, neglect or mistreatment of a Covered Horse, however, may take many forms and is not easily capable of definition. Thus, the Authority believes that this rule, like the Code of Standards and the ARCI Model Rules, should remain open-ended to provide flexibility in its application to varied circumstances that could constitute abuse, neglect or mistreatment of a Covered Horse.

104

Dr. Jeff Blea and the CHRB.

2220. Attending Veterinarian

The Authority proposes new language to Rule 2220(a) to specify that an Attending Veterinarian must be licensed by a “State's board of veterinary examiners (or applicable veterinary licensing board),” in addition to the current requirement of licensure by the State Racing Commission in the jurisdiction in which the Attending Veterinarian is attending to Covered Horses.

105

The additional language was suggested by the HBPA.

Several commenters noted that treatment should not be limited to Attending Veterinarians, as Association Veterinarians often provide emergency care as well as supportive care for Covered Horses that are injured.

106

The Authority agrees and has proposed new introductory language to Rule 2220(a), authorizing Regulatory Veterinarians and Lead Veterinarians (which are appointed by the Authority and may include Association Veterinarians) to administer emergency treatment to Covered Horses on Racetrack grounds when the Attending Veterinarian is not present.

107

This exception is necessary to protect the safety and welfare of Covered Horses in emergency situations.

106

This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

107

The new introductory language in Rule 2220(a) provides, “[

]

ubject to Rule 2230(d),

only Attending Veterinarians . . . may attend to Covered Horses at any location under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission.” (emphasis added). Rule 2230(d) authorizes the Regulatory Veterinarian to administer emergency treatment to horses on Racetrack grounds when the Attending Veterinarian is not present. Rule 2134(c) provides that the “Lead Veterinarian(s) shall perform all of the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Regulatory Veterinarian(s) as specified in these Rules.” Thus, this exception permits the Regulatory Veterinarian(s) and Lead Veterinarian(s) to attend to Covered Horses in emergency situations.

2221. Treatments by Attending Veterinarian

In addition to minor modifications to include the words “Responsible Person” and “Covered Horse,” the word “drug” is replaced by “Controlled Medication” in the rule's prohibition against prescribing, dispensing, or administering a Controlled Medication except in the context of a valid Veterinarian-client patient relationship. The term “Controlled Medication” is preferred to avoid confusion, to clarify what is being referenced in this rule, and to correspond to the term as used and defined in the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program Rules.

2230. Treatment Restrictions

Paragraph (a) of the rule is modified to remove the qualifier “at locations under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission” from the provision that now states in pertinent part that only Responsible Persons “or their designees shall be permitted to authorize veterinary medical treatment of Covered Horses under their care, custody, and control.” The language is deleted as improperly restrictive; the restriction concerning the authorization of veterinary medical treatment exists regardless of where the Covered Horse is located. This further promotes the welfare of Covered Horses.

Paragraph (b) restricts to Veterinarians the power to prescribe medication with instructions for administration by a Responsible Person for a Covered Horse. Paragraph (b) is modified to make clear that a Veterinarian must be licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the applicable state only if such licensure is required in the State. Veterinarians often travel from state to state, and should not be required to be licensed to practice veterinary medicine in a particular state if that state does not require such licensure. In addition, paragraph (b) is modified to delete the requirement that the Veterinarian be licensed by the State Racing Commission; instead, the rule now explicitly requires that the Veterinarian be registered with the Authority.

Paragraph (c) generally prohibits contact by an Attending Veterinarian with a Covered Horse within the 24 hours before post-time of race in which the Covered Horse is scheduled to compete. The current rule permits an exception to this restriction in “an emergency.” This phrase is replaced by more precise language that permitting contact if “such contact is necessitated by an imminent risk to equine welfare, health, or safety.” The rule is also modified to require that any contact with the Covered Horse within the specified 24 hours be reported to the Regulatory Veterinarian. This reporting requirement is necessary to prompt intervention by the Regulatory Veterinarian to determine whether a Covered Horse should be scratched from the race.

The introductory clause “notwithstanding Rule 2220(a)” is added to paragraph (d). This clause clarifies that paragraph (d), which permits the Regulatory Veterinarian (and, by extension, the Lead Veterinarian) to administer emergency treatment to Covered Horses on Racetrack grounds when the Attending Veterinarian is not present, is an exception to Rule 2220(a), which states that only Attending Veterinarians may attend to Covered Horses at locations under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission. Paragraph (g), governing the ability of persons with medical conditions to possess a syringe at locations under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission, is modified to require that any request for permission to possess a syringe must be in writing, and to clarify that the person making the request must submit a letter from a physician to the Stewards or the State

Racing Commission in connection with the request. This modification is necessary to clarify the process for submitting requests to possess a syringe on Racetrack grounds.

2240. Veterinarians' List

This rule establishes the Veterinarians' List, which is a list of Covered Horses that have compromised health or unsoundness and prohibits these Covered Horses from racing. Rules 2240 through 2242 outline the process by which Covered Horses are determined to have recovered from their illness or unsoundness and may return to racing. Covered Horses that participate in a race while medically or physically compromised are at risk for exacerbating the illness or physical injury, and in some cases having a career ending or catastrophic injury, also risking severe injury to the Jockey. The rule prevents affected Covered Horses from racing until the Covered Horses have recovered from their illness or injury. The rule is designed to protect Covered Horses from worsening an existing condition, and allow for recovery, rehabilitation, and return to racing in a healthy state. The rule is intended to protect Jockeys from injury associated with a fall from a Covered Horse due to the Covered Horse incurring a severe injury during a race and falling at high speed. Racetracks will benefit from the prevention of horse fatalities during races. Racetracks and Racing Commissions will benefit because the Veterinarians' List will be shared among all racing jurisdictions so that Covered Horses put on the list at one jurisdiction will be identifiable when the Covered Horse moves to another jurisdiction.

The Authority proposes several modifications to this rule. Paragraph (b) is modified to state with more precision, and in specific respects to alter, the current rule governing those Covered Horses required to be placed on the Veterinarians' List. The modification deletes the phrase “positive test or overage, administration of a medication invoking a mandatory stand down time,” and the phrase “positive Out of Competition Test.” The Authority proposes deletion of these phrases as no longer necessary with the implementation of the ADMC Program. Covered Horses with a positive test may be subject to periods of ineligibility under the ADMC Program, which, like the Veterinarians' List, prevents the Covered Horse from racing while in a compromised state.

The current language setting out the triggering conditions or events that require placement on the Veterinarians' List is re-written to distinguish placement on the Veterinarians' List by the Regulatory Veterinarian from placement on the Veterinarians' List by the Authority. Generally speaking, the Regulatory Veterinarian regulates and monitors the physical condition of Covered Horses at the Racetrack, and may place Covered Horses on the Veterinarians' List for physical conditions such as unsoundness, injury, Epistaxis, and other conditions listed in the rule. In the new language, three conditions in particular (unsoundness, injury, Epistaxis) prohibit Covered Horses from participating in a Workout for 7 days. This is an added safety measure for the Covered Horse.

The Authority is permitted to place Covered Horses on the Veterinarians' List for any of the grounds specified in Rule 2240(b)(3)(i) through (vii). These grounds correspond to treatments or racing status that the Authority has the ability to monitor through required reporting to the Authority by Responsible Persons and Attending Veterinarians and include:

(i) Covered Horses which have not started in more than 365 days;

(ii) unraced Covered Horses which have not made a start prior to January 1 of their 4-year-old year;

(iii) Covered Horses which have been administered Shock Wave Therapy;

(iv) Covered Horses which have been administered an intra-articular injection;

(v) Covered Horses which have been administered clenbuterol;

(vi) Covered Horses designated by the Agency; and

(vii) Covered Horses currently on a Veterinarian's List in any state, if trying to enter in a Covered Horserace.

Several of these categories are added to this rule to harmonize with the ADMC Rules and to ensure that all reasons for placement on the Veterinarians' List are included in a single location for easy reference by stakeholders. Category (vii) is included to account for Covered Horses that race in Covered Horseraces and non-Covered Horseraces over the course of their career. This ensures that any Covered Horse placed on any Veterinarians' List—regardless of jurisdiction—is accurately captured by the Authority's Veterinarians' List.

Rule 2240(c) is modified to use the phrases “Responsible Person” and “Designated Owner” in place of the words “trainers and owners.” The essential requirement of the rule remains the same: the Responsible Person and Designated Owner are required to be notified within 24 hours that their Covered Horse has been placed on the Veterinarians' List. The Authority received several comments pertaining to this 24-hour notification requirement, asking who is responsible for sending the notification as well as the method for notifying the Responsible Person and Designated Owner.

108

Under current practice, notifications are being delivered through the Authority's portal to the Responsible Person and the Designated Owner (their contact information is on file with the Authority) when the Covered Horse is placed on the Veterinarians' List for a category that requires the Covered Horse to complete a workout for removal from the Veterinarians' List, such as Epistaxis, unsoundness, no starts within the last 365 days, and no start prior to January 1 of the Covered Horse's 4-year-old year. The Authority is currently developing a system to notify the Responsible Person and Designated Owner when the Covered Horse is placed on the Veterinarians' List for all other reasons. The Authority anticipates this notification system will be live when these rules take effect.

108

Graham Motion, Tom Robbins, Breeders' Cup, ROCO, Dr. Lynn Hovda, and a comment submitted jointly by submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

2241. Duration of Stay on the Veterinarians' List

Rule 2241 specifies the duration of periods for which Covered Horses must remain on the Veterinarians' List. The provisions concerning multiple placements on the Veterinarians' List for unsoundness and Epistaxis remain essentially the same—multiple placements on the Veterinarians' List within a 365-day period could subject the Covered Horse to an extended period of time on the Veterinarians' List. This rule is designed to identify Covered Horses that may be at an increased risk of injury and mandate additional recovery time.

Physical distress, medical compromise, injury, infirmity, and heat exhaustion are added to illness in paragraph (a)(5) as conditions requiring a Covered Horse to remain on the Veterinarians' List for 7 days. These additions are intended to correct an oversight in the original safety rules which did not provide a duration of stay for these conditions. The 7-day period on the Veterinarians' List is consistent with standard industry practice. The phrase “a minimum” is also added to this paragraph to provide discretion to the Regulatory Veterinarian to extend the duration on the Veterinarians' List.

The Authority received a comment in response to paragraph (a)(6), questioning whether a Covered Horse is permitted to participate in training activities while on the Veterinarians' List following Shock Wave Therapy treatment.

109

The Authority supplemented the language in this rule to clarify that Covered Horses treated with Shock Wave Therapy are prohibited from participating in a Workout for 14 days. This permits the Covered Horse to continue light training while undergoing Shock Wave Therapy treatment, which was a request submitted by various industry participants.

110

109

Tom Robbins.

110

See, e.g.,

Dr. Scott Hay.

Language is added to paragraph (a)(7) to incorporate the provisions in Rule 4222 of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program regarding the standdown times following administration of an intra-articular injection to a Covered Horse. The Authority believes the use and regulation of intra-articular injections is a safety issue that is best addressed in the Rule 2000 Series. This paragraph (a)(7) requires Covered Horses administered any intra-articular injection to be placed on the Veterinarians' List for 14 days and further prohibits the Covered Horses from participating in a Workout for 7 days. However, consistent with Rule 2271(a)(12), if the Covered Horse is administered a corticosteroid intra-articular injection in the fetlock joint, the duration on the Veterinarians' List is extended to 30 days.

The Authority received a question asking whether a Covered Horse may apply to perform a Workout 7 days into the 14-day period on the Veterinarians' List following administration of an intra-articular injection.

111

As noted above, this rule has been modified to clarify that, with the exception of corticosteroid intra-articular injections in the fetlock joint, a Covered Horse may participate in a Workout and resume training activities 7 days after being placed on the Veterinarians' List.

111

Breeders' Cup.

2242. Removal of Covered Horses From the Veterinarians' List

Rule 2242 sets forth the criteria for removal of a Covered Horse from the Veterinarians' List. Under the current rule, a process is established by which the Trainer and the Attending Veterinarian, after observing the horse jog, may submit a co-signed statement that the Covered Horse is fit to perform a Workout. New language will address diagnostics required by the Regulatory Veterinarian and application by the Trainer for permission to perform a Workout, such application to be made no less than 48 hours in advance of the Workout. A new provision in this rule specifies that: “If the Covered Horse does not perform the Workout for the Regulatory Veterinarian within 7 days, the Trainer and Attending Veterinarian must observe the Covered Horse again at the jog and submit a new co-signed statement.” This is to ensure that the co-signed statement and Workout are taking place as contemporaneously as practically possible to avoid any significant changes to the health of Covered Horse between the time of the jog (and co-signed statement) and the Workout.

Under the current rule, a Covered Horse may be released if the Regulatory Veterinarian determines that there are no signs of Epistaxis, physical distress, medical compromise, or unsoundness. New language requires this determination to be made after the Workout, but during a period that is no less than 30 minutes and no greater than two hours after the Workout.

112

This range enhances safety and is in the best interests of the health and welfare of the Covered Horse.

112

This is in response to comments received from Dr. Lynn Hovda, Tom Robbins, Dr. Jeff Blea, and a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.

Additional new language requires the collection of a blood sample after the Workout, and requires the Regulatory Veterinarian who conducts the Workout to communicate the results to the Regulatory Veterinarian who placed the Covered Horse on the Veterinarians' List. Currently, some racing jurisdictions require a blood test before a Covered Horse may be removed from the Veterinarians' List. The Authority agrees with this requirement as it enhances equine welfare. Thus, the Authority proposes this new requirement as a measure to improve equine safety and welfare of Covered Horses and to benefit the industry by creating a uniform standard for removal of Covered Horses from the Veterinarians' List.

A new provision, in paragraph (c), states: “A Covered Horse which has not started in more than 365 days or has not made a start prior to January 1 of its 4-year-old year may perform a Workout in the presence of the Regulatory Veterinarian beginning 335 days since its last start or, if unraced, December 1st of its 3-year-old year. If the Covered Horse has not started within 60 days of being released by the Regulatory Veterinarian, the Covered Horse must fulfill the requirements in 2242(a) again.” This “pre-clearance process” is proposed at the request of stakeholders and provides a mechanism whereby the Covered Horse may complete a Workout and submit to a blood sample beginning 335 days since the last start. If cleared by the Regulatory Veterinarian, the Covered Horse will be permitted to enter a race immediately (provided it is no later than 60 days from the date the Covered Horse was cleared by the Regulatory Veterinarian) as opposed to starting or restarting the clearance process beginning on day 365 or later. The practical effect is that horses that are approaching race readiness will not have an additional wait time imposed if they can be pre-authorized. The time between requesting an appointment to work off the Veterinarians' List, being cleared by the testing lab, and having the right race come up for entry can be in excess of 30 days. The 60-day reset is consistent with pre-existing standard industry practice.

The following language is to be deleted from the rule: “In addition to the requirements set forth herein and any requirements of the Protocol, if a Horse is placed on the Veterinarians' List for a positive test or overage of a primary substance invoking a mandatory stand down time, a positive Out-of-Competition test, or any other veterinary administrative withdrawal, the Horse shall be prohibited from entering a Race and may be released from the Veterinarians' List only after also undergoing a post-Workout inspection by the Regulatory Veterinarian.” As noted above, the Authority is deleting language from Rule 2240 regarding the placement of Covered Horses on the Veterinarians' List for positive tests. Accordingly, the Authority proposes deletion of the language in Rule 2242 concerning the corresponding procedures for removal of these horses from the Veterinarians' List.

Multiple commenters requested clarification as to the permitted activities while a Covered Horse is on the Veterinarians' List.

113

Placement on the Authority's Veterinarians' List restricts a Covered Horse from participating in a Covered Horserace during the applicable period of time but, unless expressly prohibited in the rules, the Covered Horse may participate in a Workout and other training activities.

113

Breeders' Cup and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

2250. Covered Horse Treatment History and Records

2251. Veterinary Reports

Rule 2251 sets forth the reporting requirements imposed upon Veterinarians who treat Covered Horses. The current rule specifies the information that must be provided; these requirements are modified to apply to “treatments, procedures, and surgeries performed at a location licensed by a State Racing Commission or a Training Facility.” An additional category is established in new paragraph (c): “For treatments, procedures, and surgeries performed at a location that is not a Training Facility or is not licensed by a State Racing Commission, and in addition to the information required to be submitted by Veterinarians pursuant to Rule Series 3000, every Veterinarian who examines or treats a Covered Horse shall, within 24 hours of ambulatory care, outpatient care, or discharge from a clinic or hospital, submit to the Authority the following information in an electronic format designated by the Authority:. . .” In response to industry feedback, the Authority proposes separate reporting requirements to ease the administrative burden on referral clinics and other medical facilities that are not licensed by the State Racing Commission. In some instances, these clinics may be providing multiple treatments per day to a Covered Horse. To reduce their compliance obligation, the Authority has limited the reporting requirements of these facilities to information that is relevant to racing eligibility and the safety and health of Covered Horses.

A commenter suggested that “all HISA Registered Vets” should be included at the beginning of paragraph (a) of this Rule.

114

All veterinarians that treat Covered Horses are required to register with the Authority. Thus, the Authority does not believe the addition of this language is necessary. Moreover, the Authority does not want to exclude unregistered veterinarians from reporting information to the Authority pertaining to the treatment of Covered Horses. Another commenter asked what is meant by the term “treatments” as used in this rule.

115

This term is intended to capture the types of treatment or practices that would require the Veterinarian to generate a written record under applicable state veterinary laws.

114

The Jockey Club.

115

Keeneland.

Finally, the Authority is proposing new language to this Rule to explicitly authorize it to utilize the information included in the treatment records for purposes of research conducted by the Authority in accordance with its mandate under the Act.

2252. Responsible Persons' Records

Rule 2252 imposes upon Responsible Persons the requirement to maintain specified categories of records of medical, therapeutic, and surgical treatments and procedures for every Covered Horse under their control. The rule specifies that treatment includes “the administration of medications that are prescribed by a Veterinarian but administered by the Responsible Person or the Responsible Person's designee . . . and specifically excludes medications or procedures directly administered by a Veterinarian.” The Authority proposes deleting all references to “Veterinarians licensed by the State Racing Commission” as duplicative of the definition of Veterinarian in Rule 1020, which already includes a licensing requirement.

A commenter questioned whether the current version of (b)(3) (“specifically excludes medications or procedures directly administered by a Veterinarian. . . .”) contradicts with the wording in Rule 3040(8).

116

The Authority agrees with this comment and has revised (b)(3) to include the introductory phrase “notwithstanding Rule 3040(8)” to avoid any potential conflict between the rules.

116

HBPA.

Additional language is added to clarify that the approval of the Authority is required for State Racing Commissions and Stewards to access treatment records, and that no provision of the rules shall limit the Authority's use of records submitted under the Rule 2000 Series. These changes are made to ensure the Authority may use the information for purposes of research conducted by the Authority in accordance with the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act to enhance the safety and welfare of Covered Horses.

2253. Records for Covered Horses Shipping to the Racetrack

The Authority proposes a few modifications to Rule 2253 pertaining to records for Covered Horses shipping to a Racetrack. Currently, the rule requires the Responsible Person to maintain specified treatment information regarding the Covered Horse for the “previous thirty (30) days.” The Authority proposes removing this requirement to ensure all treatment information is being maintained by the Responsible Person. Moreover, the Authority proposes the addition of new categories of information to be maintained by the Responsible Person, including daily logs of exercise activities and daily logs of treatments and procedures. Finally, consistent with Rule 2251 and Rule 2252, the Authority has proposed new language authorizing it to use the information for purposes of research in accordance with the Act.

A commenter asked whether the trainer is responsible for maintaining these records or whether this rule requires submission to the Authority or someone else.

117

This Rule 2253 requires the Responsible Person to obtain and maintain the information set out in the Rule; there is no language in this Rule requiring the information to be submitted to the Authority, though the Authority may request the information at any time.

117

ROCO.

2260. Claiming Races

2261. Transfer of Claimed Covered Horse Records

Claiming races are races in which horses entered in the race may be purchased for the claiming price by a new trainer/owner. The horse becomes the property of the new trainer/owner as soon as the horse leaves the starting gate in the race. In the case of a successful claim (horse purchase), Rule 2261 effects transfer of medical records of the horse to the new trainer/owner. Knowledge of the past medical history provides information to the new trainer/owner so that the horse may be managed appropriately, given its history, and obtain the best training and medical care for the horse's optimal health. The proposed modifications to this Rule clarify the records to be transferred to the new owner as well as the process for effectuating the transfer of information.

2262. Void Claim

Rule 2262 contains the Authority's void claim rule. The rule currently in effect provides the claim exceptions that if the horse dies, is euthanized, is vanned off (due to the inability of the horse to exit the racecourse), becomes unsound or medically compromised, bleeds from the nostrils (and presumably the lungs) after the race, or has a positive drug test, then transfer of the horse does not occur. The rule protects the purchaser of the horse from acquiring an injured, compromised, or dead horse and provides disincentives to trainers/owners to enter a horse that is compromised from latent injury or ailment in a race with the intent for another trainer/owner to take responsibility by claiming the horse in

the race. The rule does permit the claimant the option not to void the claim if, prior to the race in which the Covered Horse is claimed, the claimant elects to claim the Covered Horse by checking the appropriate box on the claim slip regardless of whether the Regulatory Veterinarian determines the Covered Horse will be placed on the Veterinarians' List for Epistaxis or as unsound or lame. The option not to be voided by the potential new trainer/owner is useful in circumstances in which a compromised horse may be rehabilitated after the race, or where the new trainer/owner desires to acquire a horse for breeding purposes as opposed to continuing to train and race.

The void claim rule protects Covered Horses from being raced when they are not physically or medically fit to do so. The rule protects Covered Persons from purchasing a compromised horse. Racetracks, racing commissions, and the racing industry benefit because compromised horses in races are more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury, and thus the rule prevents some catastrophic or career ending injuries. The rule is now modified in a number of ways to enhance equine safety.

The current rule requires the claimed horse to go to the test barn for observation by the Regulatory Veterinarian. New provisions are added that provide more detailed requirements for the observation. A modification specifies that the horse may be sent to a test barn “or approved secured area,” since the test barn at some Racetracks is not large enough to accommodate claimed horse inspections. New provisions include a minimum period of 30 minutes during which the horse shall be periodically observed, unless excused by the Regulatory Veterinarian; a requirement that the horse be jogged to determine if the horse exhibits signs of Epistaxis or is unsound or lame; and a specific direction that the horse be observed for Epistaxis, or any other clinical abnormalities. If a horse is placed on the Veterinarians' List for Epistaxis, or is unsound or lame, a new rule requires the Regulatory Veterinarian to inform the Stewards, who may order the claim to be voided.

Current language has been re-worked and new provisions added stating that if a post-race sample collected from a horse that is claimed results in an Adverse Analytical Finding (as that term is defined in the Rule 1000 Series), the claimant is provided 48 hours to exercise the option to void the claim. This rule was the subject of much analysis and consideration during its development, and comments expressed a number of divergent views concerning the rule. If a Prohibited Substance is determined to be present in the Covered Horse, the claimant should have the option to void the claim in part because the Prohibited Substance may have enhanced the performance of the horse. Claimants should have the option to void the claim under these circumstances, since the horse's performance in the race is not reflective of its actual abilities in a race. However, in those instances in which the Prohibited Substance does not alter the value of the horse to the claimant, the claimant should have the option to keep the horse. This might be the case if the claimant desires to purchase the horse for breeding purposes, rather than to run the horse in future races.

New provisions are added that specify that the claim may not be voided if the Covered Horse makes a start under the new owner, if the new owner fails to exercise due care in maintaining and boarding the Covered Horse, makes material alterations to the horse, or if the Covered Horse dies or is euthanized, as these acts demonstrate an intent on the part of the claimant to exercise ownership of the horse and could result in physical changes to the horse. The meaning of the term “material alterations” is left open-ended to provide flexibility in its application to varied circumstances that can constitute and alteration.

Finally, a new provision is added to permit the claimant whose claim is voided to recover all sums paid, as well as reasonable expenses incurred for care of the horse while the horse was in the care, custody, and control of the claimant. This conforms with pre-existing industry practice.

2263. Waiver Claiming Option

Under the Waiver Claiming Option Rule, if a horse trainer/owner has rehabilitated a horse and wishes to start the horse in a race, the trainer/owner can start the horse in a claiming race without the possibility of the horse being claimed by another trainer/owner. This allows a horse trainer/owner to take time to rehabilitate a horse and then start the horse in a race without the possibility of losing the horse to another trainer/owner. The rule incentivizes trainers/owners to rehabilitate horses for long term health and an extended racing career. A new provision is added which allows a Responsible Person to declare a Covered Horse to be ineligible to be claimed for a second consecutive race provided certain conditions are met, including (1) the waiver was asserted in the first race back; (2) the horse does not win its first race back; (3) no change in majority ownership; and (4) the horse is entered in a claiming race with a claiming price equal to or greater than the claiming price for which it last started. Permitting a second consecutive waiver encourages owner/trainer continuity and is in the best interest of the Covered Horse.

2270. Prohibited Practices and Requirements for Safety and Health of Covered Horses

2271. Prohibited Practices

This rule regulates the use of practices that: (1) mask pain to allow horses to train and race with injuries or joint disease (

e.g.,

neurectomy, shock wave therapy, electrical medical devices); (2) induce inflammation and pain with the intent to speed healing of injured structures (

e.g.,

pin-firing); or, (3) cause pain to stimulate a horse to run faster (

e.g.,

electrical shock). Certain specific practices (such as shock wave therapy) are also addressed in specific rules in this section. The rule is intended to prevent abuse of racehorses by preventing the masking of pain that allows horses to train and race while injured, and by preventing the stimulation of pain to coerce racehorses to perform beyond their athletic potential. In

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.