Interstate Movement of Livestock; Approved Livestock Facilities, Hog Cholera Provisions, and Livestock Identification

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 51, 56, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80, and 85

[Docket No. 96-041-1]

Interstate Movement of Livestock; Approved Livestock Facilities,

Hog Cholera Provisions, and Livestock Identification

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the

interstate movement of livestock by combining the provisions for the

approval of livestock markets for cattle and bison, horses, and swine

into a single section. These changes are the result of a comprehensive

review of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's regulations,

programs, and policies regarding livestock markets and stockyards. We

are also proposing to remove the regulations that restrict the movement

of swine and swine products from areas quarantined for hog cholera and

that provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of swine

destroyed because of hog cholera. We would remove the hog cholera

regulations because the United States has been free of hog cholera

since 1978 and import requirements have proven adequate to prevent the

reintroduction of the disease into this country. These proposed actions

would eliminate unnecessary or duplicative regulations and remove the

implication that hog cholera has not yet been eradicated in the United

States.

DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or

before December 30, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 96-041-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,

Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please

state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-041-1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th

Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to

facilitate entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. James P. Davis, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Surveillance and Animal

Identification Team, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-5970; or E-

mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in subchapters B and C of chapter I, title 9, of

the Code of Federal Regulations contain provisions designed to prevent

the dissemination of animal diseases in the United States and

facilitate their control and eradication. Subchapter B, ``Cooperative

Control and Eradication of Livestock or Poultry Diseases,'' comprises 9

CFR parts 49 through 56; subchapter C, ``Interstate Transportation of

Animals (Including Poultry) and Animal Products,'' is made up of 9 CFR

parts 70 through 89. In this document, we are proposing to amend or

delete portions of those two subchapters in order to eliminate

duplication, streamline existing provisions, and remove unnecessary

regulations.

Approval of Livestock Facilities

The regulations in subchapter C include provisions for the approval

of livestock markets and stockyards where livestock are gathered for

sale purposes. Those approvals are intended to ensure that the markets

and stockyards are constructed and operated in a manner that will

prevent the transmission of diseases among the livestock assembled for

sales or auctions on the premises. Currently, the regulations in

subchapter C contain five different approvals for livestock markets or

stockyards: One in part 75 for horses, two in part 76 for swine, and

two in part 78 for cattle and bison. Although each approval necessarily

differs in certain aspects from the others due to considerations

related to the specific diseases of concern and the types of animals

involved, there are many elements that are common to all five

approvals. In 1995, we undertook a comprehensive review of the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') regulations, programs,

and policies regarding livestock markets and stockyards, and one

recommendation that resulted from that review was that the five

livestock market or stockyard agreements be consolidated into a single

agreement. We are, therefore, proposing to remove the stockyard and

market approval provisions from parts 75, 76, and 78 and combine them

into a single section that would be located in part 71, ``General

Provisions.'' We believe that having a single section dealing with the

approval of markets and stockyards

[[Page 56156]]

would be logical, given the large number of common elements shared by

the five existing market approvals. In addition, having a single market

approval agreement would ease the paperwork and recordkeeping burden

for both the operators of those markets and for the APHIS and State

personnel tasked with supervising the markets.

The proposed new livestock facility approval provisions would be

located in a new section, Sec. 71.20. The new section would be divided

into two paragraphs; paragraph (a) would set out the approved livestock

facility agreement, and paragraph (b) would contain the provisions for

the withdrawal or denial of approval for a livestock facility. The

agreement itself would be divided into a section of general provisions

followed by sections specific to cattle and bison, swine, and horses.

When completing the agreement, the operator of the livestock facility

would indicate which animals and classes of animals the facility would

accept by initialing the appropriate paragraphs of the agreement. Most

elements of the existing market approval provisions, which are found in

Sec. 75.4(c) and (d) for horses, Sec. 76.18 for swine, and Sec. 78.44

for cattle and bison, would be incorporated into proposed new

Sec. 71.20. Two new elements would be added to the agreement and some

elements of the existing provisions would be eliminated or modified.

These proposed changes are discussed below.

Currently, the livestock market approvals in parts 75 and 78

require that an APHIS representative, State representative, or

accredited veterinarian must be on the premises on sale days to perform

any duties required by State or Federal regulations. When an APHIS or

State representative is unavailable, the operator of the livestock

market must hire an accredited veterinarian to perform those duties,

which increases the operating expenses for the facility. However, many

livestock facilities do not necessarily need an APHIS or State

representative or accredited veterinarian on the premises every sale

day; depending on the type of animals being sold or the geographic

origin of the animals being sold, there may be no duties to be

performed under the applicable State or Federal regulations. For

example, a livestock market in a tuberculosis accredited-free State may

be handling, on a particular sale day, only steers and spayed heifers.

Given the State's accredited-free status, there would be no

restrictions on the interstate movement of the animals under the

tuberculosis regulations in 9 CFR part 77, and, because the animals are

steers and spayed heifers, there would be no restrictions on their

interstate movement under the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78.

In this example, there would be no need for a State or APHIS

representative or an accredited veterinarian to be present at the

market to inspect or test the animals prior to their sale or release

from the facility, but the current market approval provisions require

that a State or APHIS representative or an accredited veterinarian be

present nonetheless.

The current market agreements already require that the operator of

the facility furnish a copy of the facility's schedule of sale days to

the area veterinarian in charge and the State animal health official;

the proposed new agreement would retain that requirement. Under the

proposed new agreement, the State animal health official and area

veterinarian in charge would review that schedule, which would have to

indicate the types of animals that will be handled at the facility on

each sale day, to ascertain which upcoming sale days will include

categories of livestock that are regulated under State or Federal

regulations. The State animal health official or area veterinarian in

charge will then inform the operator of the facility which sale days

will require the presence of an APHIS or State representative or

accredited veterinarian. The proposed new agreement, therefore, would

require the presence of an APHIS or State representative or accredited

veterinarian at the livestock facility only on those days designated by

the State animal health official or area veterinarian in charge.

The second element that we would add to the livestock market

agreement is an explicit prohibition on the sale of any livestock that

show signs of being infected with any infectious, contagious, or

communicable disease without the authorization of an APHIS or State

representative or accredited veterinarian. The current market approvals

provide for the sale of reactor or exposed livestock--i.e., animals

known to be infected with or exposed to disease--so there are

mechanisms already in place for such animals to be sold with official

authorization. Paragraph (f) of Sec. 71.3 requires, in part, that

persons offering livestock for interstate movement must exercise

reasonable diligence to ascertain whether those animals are affected

with or have been exposed to any contagious, infectious, or

communicable disease. This proposed addition to the livestock market

agreement would reinforce that requirement by helping to ensure that

livestock that appear to be affected with disease--but that have not

been officially tested and classified as reactor, exposed, or suspect--

are not sold without the knowledge and authorization of an APHIS or

State representative or accredited veterinarian.

As noted above, some elements of the existing market approval

provisions would be eliminated or modified. Those proposed changes are

as follows:

Section 75.4. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 75.4 pertain not only

to the approval of stockyards, but to the approval of laboratories and

diagnostic or research facilities as well. Therefore, Sec. 75.4(c)(1)

(laboratories) and Sec. 75.4(c)(2) (diagnostic or research facilities)

would remain the same; Sec. 75.4(c)(3) (stockyards) would be removed in

its entirety and its provisions incorporated into proposed new

Sec. 71.20 with one modification: Paragraph (8) of the current

agreement calls for the stockyard to retain for 1 year any documents

relating to animals that have been in the stockyard. We would increase

the length of the record retention period to 2 years in order to make

it consistent with that of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards

Administration (GIPSA). The GIPSA regulations in 9 CFR 203.4 require,

among other things, that stockyards maintain for 2 years any

``accounts, records, and memoranda that contain, explain, or modify its

business,'' and many of the documents maintained to meet APHIS'

requirements are also maintained to meet the GIPSA requirements.

Paragraph (d) of Sec. 75.4 addresses the denial or withdrawal of

approval for laboratories, diagnostic or research facilities, and

stockyards. Because proposed new Sec. 71.20 would address denial and

withdrawal of approval for stockyards, we would simply delete all the

references to stockyards from Sec. 75.4(d) and leave in place the

provisions for the denial or withdrawal of approval for laboratories

and diagnostic or research facilities.

Section 76.18. The provisions found in Sec. 76.18, ``Approval of

Livestock Markets,'' would be incorporated into proposed new

Sec. 71.20, with four exceptions. First, paragraph (a) of Sec. 76.18

states that lists of livestock markets approved for the purposes of the

regulations in part 76 will be published in the Federal Register. As

explained below, we are proposing in this document to remove all of

part 76 from subchapter C, which would remove the requirement to

publish the names of approved stockyards in the Federal Register.

Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 76.18(a) would not be incorporated

into proposed new Sec. 71.20. Second, paragraph 10 of the agreement in

Sec. 76.18(b)(1) and paragraph 4 of the

[[Page 56157]]

agreement in Sec. 76.18(b)(2) prohibit the inoculation of swine at the

livestock market with hog cholera vaccine or virulent hog cholera

virus. Because hog cholera has been eradicated in the United States,

such inoculations have been discontinued throughout the country and

that prohibition is no longer necessary. Third, paragraph 11 of the

agreement in Sec. 76.18(b)(1) and paragraph 5 of the agreement in

Sec. 76.18(b)(2) call for records to be maintained for 1 year. We would

increase that period to 2 years to make it consistent with GIPSA

requirements, as discussed in the previous paragraph, and with the

swine identification retention requirements of Sec. 71.19(d)(2).

Finally, we would eliminate the provisions of Sec. 76.18(c), ``Approval

of livestock markets in a quarantined area,'' because there are no

longer any areas quarantined for hog cholera.

Section 78.44. The provisions found in Sec. 78.44, ``Specifically

approved stockyards,'' would be incorporated into proposed new

Sec. 71.20, with two exceptions. First, paragraph 7 of the agreement in

Sec. 78.44(c) and paragraph 6 of the agreement in Sec. 78.44(d)(7)

state, in part, that brucellosis reactors must be identified with a

``B'' brand on the left jaw. However, the regulations in part 78--

specifically, the definition of ``B'' brand in Sec. 78.1--no longer

require that brucellosis reactors be branded on the jaw; that

requirement was removed in a final rule published in the Federal

Register on September 19, 1995 (60 FR 48362-48369, Docket No. 95-006-

2), but the agreements in Sec. 78.44 were not amended to reflect that

change. To ensure that brucellosis reactor cattle and bison are

properly identified in accordance with the applicable regulations, the

agreement in proposed Sec. 71.20 would simply state that brucellosis

reactors must be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 78. Second,

paragraph 20 of the agreement in Sec. 78.44(c) and paragraph 19 of the

agreement in Sec. 78.44(d) call for records to be maintained for 1

year. Again, as discussed previously, we would increase the

recordkeeping period to 2 years to make it consistent with GIPSA

requirements.

Our proposed consolidation of the market approval provisions into a

single new section would make it necessary for us to amend several

parts in subchapters B and C to update the references those parts

contain to market or stockyard approvals in Secs. 75.4, 76.18, or

78.44. Such references are found in Secs. 51.1, 71.18(a)(5), 75.4(a),

78.1, 80.1, and 85.1; in each of those sections, we would amend the

reference to read ``Sec. 71.20.'' Similarly, because we would move all

the stockyard provisions into part 71, we would remove the references

to stockyards that are found in the titles of Sec. 75.4 (currently

``Interstate movement of equine infections anemia reactors and approval

of laboratories, diagnostic facilities, research facilities, and

stockyards''), Sec. 75.4(c) (currently ``Approval of laboratories,

diagnostic or research facilities, and stockyards''), and subpart E of

part 78 (currently ``Designation of Brucellosis Areas, and Specifically

Approved Stockyards'').

Related Changes

The proposed consolidation of livestock market approvals in part 71

would make it necessary for us to add several definitions to Sec. 71.1

to describe several terms used in the proposed new livestock facility

agreement.

First, we would add the term approved livestock facility, which we

would define as ``A stockyard, livestock market, buying station,

concentration point, or any other premises under State or Federal

veterinary supervision where livestock are assembled and that has been

approved under Sec. 71.20.'' We would also amend the existing

definition in Sec. 71.1 of livestock market, which is currently

defined, in part, as a premises ``where swine are assembled'' to

broaden its applicability to include cattle, bison, and horses by

replacing the word ``swine'' with the word ``livestock.'' We would add

the term livestock to the definitions in Sec. 71.1 as well, defining it

as ``Horses, cattle, bison, and swine.'' Horses would be defined as

``Horses, asses, mules, ponies, and zebras.'' All these terms that

would be added are used in the proposed new consolidated livestock

facility agreement, and their proposed definitions are all similar to

the definitions used for the same terms elsewhere in APHIS' regulations

in title 9.

We are also proposing to add definitions for the terms breeder

swine, feeder swine, and slaughter swine, which are used in the swine-

specific provisions of the agreement.

Breeder swine would be defined as ``Sexually intact swine over 6

months of age.'' The designation ``breeder swine'' is used in the

proposed new livestock facility agreement to differentiate these swine,

which in most cases would be sold to a herd owner for herd increase

purposes, from feeder swine and slaughter swine. The interstate

movement of swine in this category is subject to the general provisions

of part 71, the brucellosis regulations in part 78, and the

pseudorabies regulations in part 85. Under the proposed livestock

facility agreement, breeder swine and feeder swine could not be

released from the facility until they had been officially identified in

accordance with applicable Federal or State regulations and inspected

by an APHIS representative, State representative, or accredited

veterinarian, and certified in accordance with applicable Federal or

State regulations. Because breeder and feeder swine are not intended to

be moved to slaughter upon their sale at the facility, the

identification, inspection, and certification would serve to ensure

that the swine are in good health and, therefore, not likely to present

any significant risk of transmitting disease to other swine.

Feeder swine would be defined as ``Swine under 6 months of age that

are not slaughter swine.'' Such swine would, in most cases, be brought

to an approved livestock facility for sale to a feedlot for additional

feeding and then moved to slaughter. The interstate movement of swine

in this category is subject to the general provisions of part 71 and to

the pseudorabies regulations in part 85. The proposed agreement would

require that feeder swine be kept separate and apart from other swine

while in the livestock facility to prevent any transmission of disease

between feeder swine and other swine.

Slaughter swine would be defined as ``Swine being sold or moved for

slaughter purposes only.'' The applicability of this term is related to

the regulations in parts 78 and 85, which provide for the interstate

movement of certain swine through livestock markets for sale for

slaughter. Swine infected with or exposed to brucellosis or

pseudorabies, certain pseudorabies vaccinates, and even swine not known

to be infected with or exposed to disease could, therefore, be

characterized as slaughter swine for the purposes of the proposed new

livestock facility agreement.

In Sec. 71.1, the terms APHIS inspector and State representative

are among the terms defined. In several places in part 71, however,

reference is made to activities that are the responsibility of ``a

State inspector'' or ``an APHIS or State inspector.'' For the purposes

of consistency within part 71 and consistency with parts 75 and 78, we

are proposing to remove the term APHIS inspector from Sec. 71.1 and

replace it with the term APHIS representative, which is the term used

in parts 75 and 78. We would then amend the remainder of part 71 by

replacing references to ``inspectors''--APHIS or State--with references

to APHIS or State ``representatives.'' The definition we would use in

part 71 for APHIS representative would be the same

[[Page 56158]]

definition used in parts 75 and 78, i.e., ``An individual employed by

APHIS who is authorized to perform the function involved.''

The introductory text preceding the definitions in Sec. 71.1 states

``As used in this part, the following terms shall have the meanings set

forth in this section.'' However, Sec. 71.1 includes the terms

accredited herd, designated dipping station, recognized slaughtering

center, and stockers and feeders, terms that are not used anywhere in

part 71. We are, therefore, proposing to remove those terms from

Sec. 71.1.

Removal of Hog Cholera Provisions

The regulations in 9 CFR part 76, ``Hog Cholera and Other

Communicable Swine Diseases,'' prohibit or restrict the interstate

movement of swine and swine products to suppress and eradicate hog

cholera and other contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases of

swine. The regulations in 9 CFR part 56, ``Swine Destroyed Because of

Hog Cholera,'' provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of

swine destroyed due to hog cholera.

The regulations in parts 76 and 56 were established to promote the

eradication of hog cholera within the United States by preventing its

spread through restrictions on the interstate movement of swine and

swine products from quarantined areas and by providing indemnity for

the destruction of infected swine. In that the United States has been

free of hog cholera since 1978, the objectives of those regulations

have been met. The quarantine requirements contained in ``Subpart E--

Swine'' of 9 CFR part 92 (Secs. 92.500 through 92.523) contain testing

and quarantine provisions that help ensure that hog cholera and other

contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases of swine are not

introduced into the United States.

We are, therefore, proposing to remove, in their entirety, the hog

cholera regulations in 9 CFR parts 56 and 76. Further, we would remove

hog cholera from the list in Sec. 71.3(a) of diseases considered to be

endemic to the United States and add it to the list in Sec. 71.3(b) of

diseases not known to exist in the United States. These proposed

actions would remove the implication that hog cholera has not yet been

eradicated in the United States and would eliminate unnecessary

regulations.

The proposed removal of part 76 would also make it necessary for us

to amend two references found in part 85, ``Pseudorabies.'' The first

reference, found in Sec. 85.12, directs the reader to Sec. 76.30 for

provisions regarding the cleaning and disinfection of means of

conveyance; the second reference, found in Sec. 85.13, directs the

reader to Sec. 76.31 for provisions regarding the cleaning and

disinfection of livestock markets and other facilities. In both

instances, we would remove the existing reference and replace it with a

reference to Sec. 71.7, ``Means of conveyance, facilities and premises;

methods of cleaning and disinfecting,'' which, like the provisions in

Secs. 76.30 and 76.31, contains the information needed to properly

carry out the necessary cleaning and disinfection.

Another change we are proposing in this document is related to the

previous two paragraphs. Specifically, we are proposing to add

pseudorabies to the list in Sec. 71.3(a) of diseases considered to be

endemic to the United States (the same list from which we are proposing

to remove hog cholera).

Livestock Identification

We are also proposing four changes in the area of livestock

identification. First, we are proposing to amend the definitions of

official eartag that appear in Secs. 71.1 and 78.1. Each definition

refers, in part, to a nine-character alphanumeric identification

system. However, the eartags used for identifying feeder swine utilize

an eight-character alphanumeric identification system that, like the

nine-character system, provides individual identification for each

animal. Other eartagging systems that are being considered or that are

already in use have more or fewer characters. The use of any eartag

numbering system would have to be approved by APHIS prior to its

employment and would have to provide the level of identification for

each eartaged animal required by the particular disease control or

surveillance program in which it is being used. For that reason, we do

not believe it is necessary to specify the number of characters to be

used in an eartag numbering system. Therefore, we are proposing to

amend the definitions of official eartag in Secs. 71.1 and 78.1 to

remove the requirement that an official eartag must utilize a nine-

character identification system.

Second, we are proposing to amend Sec. 71.19(b) to allow the use of

premises identification numbers as a means of identifying swine. The

regulations in Sec. 71.19(b) currently list official eartags, USDA

backtags, official swine tattoos, tattoos of at least four characters

(for certain swine moving to slaughter), ear notches, or ear tattoos as

means of swine identification approved by the Administrator. The

premises identification number concept has been developed to provide a

means of reliably and accurately tracing swine moved in interstate

commerce and to slaughter.

Currently, the primary method of identifying swine moved to

slaughter is with a USDA backtag; however, the retention rate for those

backtags is low and misidentification of herds is widespread when swine

from different herds are commingled and backtags are missing. When

traceback and testing of swine in a herd of origin are necessary, the

lack of premises identification often leads to tracebacks to the wrong

herd and unnecessary testing, which increases costs for producers and

State or Federal epidemiologists. A premises identification number,

which would be applied to swine either on an eartag or as a tattoo,

would greatly simplify the traceback process.

The premises identification number would be assigned and tracked by

the State animal health official of the State in which a producer's

premises is located. A premises would be defined as a livestock

production unit that is, in the judgment of the State animal health

official or the area veterinarian in charge, epidemiologically distinct

from other livestock production units and that could be quarantined in

the event of a disease outbreak. The premises identification number

would consist of the State's two-letter postal abbreviation, followed

by a space, followed by the premises' assigned number. By way of

example, a swine producer in Minnesota might receive the premises

identification number ``MN 1234.'' Further, a premises identification

number could be used in conjunction with a producer's own livestock

production numbering system to provide a unique identification number

for each animal if the producer wished to do so.

Because we would not require that a premises identification number

be combined with a producer's livestock production number to provide

unique identification for each swine, we are proposing to amend

Sec. 71.19(a)(1), which states, in part, that swine moved in interstate

commerce must be individually identified. The goal of that requirement

is for each animal to be identified using one of the approved methods

listed in Sec. 71.19(a)(2); some of those methods provide unique

identification for each animal and others do not. To make it clear that

unique identification for each animal is not required, we would change

the words ``unless they are individually identified'' to ``unless each

swine is identified,'' which better suits the intent of that paragraph

and removes any

[[Page 56159]]

possible confusion as to whether non-unique methods of identification

such as ear notches or the proposed premises identification number may

be used.

The use of premises identification numbers would be voluntary. The

State animal health official in a particular State may decide that

current identification methods are sufficient and elect not to issue

premises identification numbers. Similarly, a producer in a State that

does issue premises identification numbers may elect not to apply for

such a number. However, based on the response that the premises

identification number concept has received from the swine industry,

individual producers, State animal health officials, other Federal

agencies, and the U.S. Animal Health Association, we believe that most

States and swine producers would avail themselves of the opportunity to

use this proposed new system.

Third, we are proposing to amend Sec. 71.19(b)(6), which relates to

one of the means of swine identification approved by the Administrator.

Specifically, that paragraph allows ear tattoos to be used as a means

of identifying swine for interstate movement if the tattoo has been

recorded in the book of record of a purebred registry association.

Owners of potbellied pigs have complained that the identification

requirements of the regulations are not well-suited to their pigs

because eartags are unsightly on animals that are kept as pets and,

despite the fact that there are registry associations for potbellied

pigs that could record tattoo numbers, the ears of potbellied pigs are

too small to accommodate a tattoo. Therefore, at the request of

numerous owners of potbellied pigs, we are proposing to allow

identifying tattoos to be placed either on the ear or on the inside

flank or thigh of swine. The requirement that the tattoo number be

recorded by a registry association would remain, although we would no

longer specify that it be a ``purebred registry association'' because

potbellied pigs are not purebred animals. We believe this proposed

change would answer the requests of certain swine owners for an

alternative method of swine identification while providing a

satisfactory means of identifying swine moved interstate.

Finally, we are proposing to revise Sec. 78.33, ``Sows and boars.''

That section, which deals primarily with the identification of sows and

boars moved in interstate commerce, specifies when sows and boars moved

to slaughter must be identified and sets forth the herd of origin and

health requirements for sows and boars moved for breeding. However, the

methods of identifying sows and boars (e.g., eartags, backtags,

tattoos) that are set out in Sec. 78.33(a) and (b) are not unique to

sows and boars; rather, they are the same methods that are generally

required for swine under Sec. 71.19. Further, there is nothing unique

to sows and boars in the provisions of Sec. 78.33(d) and (e), which

simply repeat the provisions of Sec. 71.19(d) and (e). Therefore, we

are proposing to remove the references to specific identification

methods from Sec. 78.33(a) and (b) and amend those paragraphs to simply

state that sows and boars must be identified in accordance with

Sec. 71.19. We would also remove Sec. 78.33(d) and (e) in their

entirety. These proposed changes would eliminate duplication and help

simplify the regulations.

Miscellaneous

In addition to the proposed amendments discussed above, we would

also make several nonsubstantive changes for the sake of clarity or

accuracy.

First, there is a reference in Sec. 71.3(c)(2) to provisions in

Sec. 77.8 concerning the interstate movement of tuberculin reactors,

but Sec. 77.8 does not exist. The interstate movement provisions

referred to in Sec. 71.3 are actually contained in Sec. 77.5. We would

change the reference to read Sec. 77.5.

Second, we would rectify two incorrect paragraph references in the

introductory text of Sec. 71.18(a). The first reference is to

Sec. 78.9(a)(3)(iv), but there is no such paragraph in Sec. 78.9. We

would correct the reference to read Sec. 78.9(a)(3)(ii), which is the

proper reference. The second reference is to Sec. 78.9(d)(3)(vii),

which was removed by a final rule published in the Federal Register on

January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1923-1926, Docket No. 88-171). When the

paragraph was removed in that final rule, all references to the

paragraph should have been removed as well, but this one was not. We

would remove the reference.

Third, also in Sec. 71.18, we would correct the paragraph

designations used in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii).

In each of the three paragraphs, italicized lowercase letters are used

where regular uppercase letters are needed.

Finally, footnote 1 to Sec. 71.18(a)(1)(i) states, in part, that

approved backtags are available from a Veterinary Services

representative and that the term Veterinary Services representative is

defined in Sec. 78.1. However, that definition was removed, and a

definition of APHIS representative added in its place, by a final rule

published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1991 (56 FR 54532-

54534, Docket No. 89-150). We would, therefore, correct the footnote to

use the current term in both instances.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.

The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

This proposed rule would amend the regulations regarding the

interstate movement of livestock by combining the provisions for the

approval of livestock markets for cattle and bison, horses, and swine

into a single section and by removing the regulations that restrict the

movement of swine and swine products from areas quarantined for hog

cholera and that provide for the payment of compensation to the owners

of swine destroyed because of hog cholera. The proposed changes to the

livestock market approval provisions were recommended following a

review of APHIS' regulations, programs, and policies regarding

livestock markets and stockyards; the hog cholera regulations would be

removed because the United States has been free of hog cholera since

1978 and import requirements have proven adequate to prevent the

reintroduction of the disease into this country. These proposed actions

would eliminate unnecessary or duplicative regulations and remove the

implication that hog cholera has not yet been eradicated in the United

States.

We estimate that combining livestock market approval provisions for

horses, swine, cattle, and bison onto one form will reduce the number

of approvals from 4,800 to fewer than 1,800 because each livestock

facility and stockyard will need only one approval. Many livestock

facilities and stockyards now have three approvals. APHIS does not

charge a user fee for inspections or approvals, so livestock facilities

would not experience a reduction in costs. However, this proposed rule

change would reduce the amount of paperwork associated with livestock

facility approvals.

The provisions of the proposed rule that would allow States, with

APHIS concurrence, to determine how frequently State representatives,

APHIS representatives, or accredited veterinarians should be present at

individual stockyards and livestock facilities could potentially reduce

the annual operating expenses of livestock facilities by about $2.3

million annually. Conversely, total annual income for

[[Page 56160]]

accredited veterinarians could potentially be reduced by about $2.3

million.

The proposed removal of the hog cholera regulations in 9 CFR parts

56 and 76 would not have any economic impact on livestock markets or

stockyards or any other entity. Hog cholera has been eradicated in the

United States since 1978 and there are no enforcement measures

currently in place.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that APHIS specifically

consider the potential economic impacts on ``small'' domestic entities

that could result from the implementation of the amendments proposed in

this document. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established

size criteria by Standard Industrial Classification that were used as a

guide in determining which economic entities meet the definition of a

``small'' business.

The changes proposed in this document will likely have a relatively

minor economic impact on the following types of small entities: (1)

Wholesale livestock traders and (2) accredited veterinarians. The SBA's

definition of a ``small'' entity involved in the wholesale trade of

livestock is one that employs no more than 100 employees. Currently,

there are 1,992 domestic entities that trade livestock wholesale. About

1,965 of these entities are classified as ``small'' by the SBA.

Livestock facilities and stockyards comprise about 1,768 (90 percent)

of the ``small'' entities included in this category. We estimate that

about 884 (50 percent) of these ``small'' entities currently hire

accredited veterinarians. The proposed rule change could reduce annual

operating costs for these 884 ``small'' entities by about $2.3 million

or $2,600 per entity. This accounts for less than 1 percent of total

annual receipts for ``small'' wholesale livestock traders according to

SBA data.

The SBA's definition of a ``small'' entity that provides veterinary

services for livestock--the category into which the accredited

veterinarians potentially affected by this proposed rule would fall--is

one that earns less than $5 million in annual receipts. Currently,

there are 1,111 domestic entities that provide veterinary services for

livestock; 1,110 of these entities are classified as ``small'' by the

SBA. The Agency estimates that this proposed rule could reduce total

annual income for livestock veterinarians, including accredited

veterinarians, by about $2.3 million or $2,070 per ``small'' entity.

This accounts for less than 1 percent of total annual receipts for this

industry, according to SBA data.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,

which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local

officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,

Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State

and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will

be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and

(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no new information collection or

recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Reform

This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform

Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove

obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways

to achieve regulatory goals.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 51

Animal diseases, Cattle, Hogs, Indemnity payments, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 71

Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,

Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 75

Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 76

Animal diseases, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 78

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 80

Animal diseases, Livestock, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 85

Animal diseases, Livestock, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we would amend chapter I, title 9, of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 51--ANIMALS DESTROYED BECAUSE OF BRUCELLOSIS

1. The authority citation for part 51 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114, 114a, 114a-1, 120, 121, 125,

and 134b; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 51.1 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 51.1, the definition of Specifically approved stockyard

would be amended by removing the reference ``Sec. 78.44'' and adding

the reference ``Sec. 71.20'' in its place.

PART 56--[RESERVED]

3. Part 56 would be removed and reserved.

PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS

4. The authority citation for part 71 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114a, 114a-1, 115-117, 120-126,

134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 71.1 [Amended]

5. Section 71.1 would be amended as follows:

a. By removing the definitions of accredited herd, APHIS inspector,

designated dipping station, recognized slaughtering center, and

stockers and feeders.

b. By adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of APHIS

representative, approved livestock facility, breeder swine, horses,

feeder swine, livestock, premises identification number, and slaughter

swine to read as set forth below.

c. In the definition of livestock market, by removing the word

``swine'' and adding the word ``livestock'' in its place.

d. In the definition of official eartag, by removing the words

``nine-character''.

Sec. 71.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 56161]]

APHIS representative. An individual employed by APHIS who is

authorized to perform the function involved.

Approved livestock facility. A stockyard, livestock market, buying

station, concentration point, or any other premises under State or

Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are assembled and that

has been approved under Sec. 71.20.

* * * * *

Breeder swine. Sexually intact swine over 6 months of age.

* * * * *

Feeder swine. Swine under 6 months of age that are not slaughter

swine.

* * * * *

Horses. Horses, asses, mules, ponies, and zebras.

* * * * *

Livestock. Horses, cattle, bison, and swine.

* * * * *

Premises identification number. A unique number assigned by the

State animal health official to a livestock production unit that is, in

the judgment of the State animal health official or area veterinarian

in charge, epidemiologically distinct from other livestock production

units. A premises identification number shall consist of the State's

two-letter postal abbreviation, followed by a space, followed by the

premises' assigned number. A premises identification number may be used

in conjunction with a producer's own livestock production numbering

system to provide a unique identification number for an animal.

* * * * *

Slaughter swine. Swine being sold or moved for slaughter purposes

only.

* * * * *

Sec. 71.3 [Amended]

6. Section 71.3 would be amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), the words ``hog cholera,'' would be removed

and the word ``pseudorabies,'' would be added in its place.

b. In paragraph (b), the words ``hog cholera,'' would be added

immediately after the words ``African swine fever,''.

c. In paragraph (c)(2), the reference ``Sec. 77.8'' would be

removed and the reference ``Sec. 77.5'' would be added in its place.

d. In paragraph (d), introductory text, in the second proviso, the

word ``inspector'' would be removed and the word ``representative''

would be added in its place.

e. In paragraph (d)(5), first sentence, the word ``inspector''

would be removed and the word ``representative'' would be added in its

place.

Sec. 71.4 [Amended]

7. Section 71.4 would be amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), at the end of the first sentence, the word

``inspector'' would be removed and the word ``representative'' would be

added in its place; at the beginning of the second sentence, the words

``such inspector'' would be removed and the words ``an APHIS or State

representative'' would be added in their place; and near the end of the

second sentence, the words ``such an inspector'' would be removed and

the words ``an APHIS or State representative'' would be added in their

place.

b. In paragraph (b), the word ``inspector'' would be removed and

the word ``representative'' would be added in its place.

Sec. 71.5 [Amended]

8. In Sec. 71.5, the undesignated regulatory text would be amended

by removing the word ``inspector'' both times it appears and by adding

the word ``representative'' in its place.

Sec. 71.6 [Amended]

9. In Sec. 71.6, paragraphs (a) and (b) would be amended by

removing the word ``inspector'' both times it appears and by adding the

word ``representative'' in its place.

Sec. 71.13 [Amended]

10. In Sec. 71.13, the section heading and the undesignated

regulatory text would be amended by removing the word ``inspector''

each time it appears and adding the word ``representative'' in its

place.

Sec. 71.16 [Amended]

11. In Sec. 71.16, paragraph (a) would be amended by removing the

word ``inspector'' both times it appears and by adding the word

``representative'' in its place.

Sec. 71.18 [Amended]

12. Section 71.18 would be amended as follows:

a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), in the first

sentence, the words ``Secs. 78.9(a)(3)(iv), 78.9(b)(3)(iv),

78.9(c)(3)(iv), and 78.9(d)(3)(vii)'' would be removed and the words

``Secs. 78.9(a)(3)(ii), 78.9(b)(3)(iv), and 78.9(c)(3)(iv)'' would be

added in their place.

b. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), footnote 1, the words ``Veterinary

Services'' would be removed both times they appear and the word

``APHIS'' would be added in their place.

c. Paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(a) through (a)(1)(i)(g) would be

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (a)(1)(i)(G).

d. Paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(a) through (a)(1)(ii)(f) would be

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) through (a)(1)(ii)(F).

e. Paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(a) through (a)(1)(iii)(g) would be

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (a)(1)(iii)(G).

f. In paragraph (a)(2), in the second sentence, the word

``inspector'' would be removed and the word ``representative'' would be

added in its place.

g. In paragraph (a)(5), the words ``Sec. 78.44 of this chapter''

would be removed and the reference ``Sec. 71.20'' would be added in its

place.

13. Section 71.19 would be amended as follows:

a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1), the words ``they

are individually'' would be removed and the words ``each swine is''

would be added in their place.

b. In paragraph (b)(5), the word ``and'' at the end of the

paragraph would be removed.

c. Paragraph (b)(6) would be revised and a new paragraph (b)(7)

would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 71.19 Identification of swine in interstate commerce.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) Tattoos on the ear or inner flank of any swine, if the tattoos

have been recorded in the book of record of a swine registry

association; and

(7) An eartag or tattoo bearing the premises identification number

assigned by the State animal health official to the premises on which

the swine originated.

* * * * *

14. A new Sec. 71.20 would be added to read as follows:

Sec. 71.20 Approval of livestock facilities.

(a) To qualify for approval by the Administrator as an approved

livestock facility 6 and to retain such designation, the

individual legally responsible for the day-to-day operations of the

livestock facility shall execute the following agreement:

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

\6\ A list of approved livestock facilities may be obtained by

writing to National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River

Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.

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

AGREEMENT--APPROVED LIVESTOCK FACILITY FOR HANDLING LIVESTOCK PURSUANT

TO TITLE 9 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

[Name of facility]

[Address and telephone number of facility]

[[Page 56162]]

I, [name of the individual legally responsible for the day-to-

day operations of the livestock facility], operator of [name of

facility], hereby agree to maintain and operate the livestock

facility located at [address of premises] in accordance with the

applicable provisions of this agreement and Chapter I, Title 9, of

the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR).

Cooperation

(1) The State animal health official and the area veterinarian

in charge shall be provided with a schedule of the facility's sale

days, which shall indicate the types of animals that will be handled

at the facility on each sale day, and shall be apprised of any

changes to that schedule prior to the implementation of the changes.

The State animal health official and the area veterinarian in charge

will review the schedule and inform the operator as to which sale

days will require the presence of an accredited veterinarian, State

representative, or APHIS representative.

(2) An accredited veterinarian, State representative, or APHIS

representative shall be on the facility premises on those sale days

designated by the State animal health official or area veterinarian

in charge to perform duties in accordance with State and Federal

regulations.

(3) State representatives and APHIS representatives shall be

granted access to the facility during normal business hours to

evaluate whether the facility and its operations are in compliance

with the applicable provisions of this agreement and 9 CFR parts 71,

75, 78, and 85.

(4) An APHIS representative, State representative, or accredited

veterinarian shall be immediately notified of the presence at the

facility of any livestock that are known to be infected, exposed, or

suspect, or that show signs of possibly being infected, with any

infectious, contagious, or communicable disease.

(5) Any reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock shall be held in

quarantined pens apart from all other livestock at the facility.

(6) No reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock, nor any livestock

that show signs of being infected with any infectious, contagious,

or communicable disease, may be sold at the facility, except as

authorized by an APHIS representative, State representative, or

accredited veterinarian.

Records

(7) Documents such as weight tickets, sales slips, and records

of origin, identification, and destination that relate to livestock

that are in, or that have been in, the facility shall be maintained

by the facility for a period of 2 years. APHIS representatives and

State representatives shall be permitted to review and copy those

documents during normal business hours.

Identification

(8) All livestock must be officially identified in accordance

with the applicable regulations in 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, and 85 at

the time of, or prior to, entry into the facility.

Cleaning and Disinfection

(9) The facility, including all yards, docks, pens, alleys, sale

rings, chutes, scales, means of conveyance, and their associated

equipment, shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.

The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the cleaning

and disinfection of the facility in accordance with 9 CFR part 71

and for maintaining an adequate supply of disinfectant and

serviceable equipment for cleaning and disinfection.

General Facilities and Equipment Standards

(10) All facilities and equipment shall be maintained in a state

of good repair. The facility shall contain well-constructed and

well-lighted livestock handling chutes, pens, alleys, and sales

rings for the inspection, identification, vaccination, testing, and

branding of livestock.

(11) Quarantined pens shall be clearly labeled with paint or

placarded with the word ``Quarantined'' or the name of the disease

of concern, and shall be cleaned and disinfected in accordance with

9 CFR part 71 before being used to pen livestock that are not

reactor, suspect, or exposed animals.

(12) Quarantined pens shall have adequate drainage, and the

floors and those parts of the walls of the quarantined pens with

which reactor, or suspect, or exposed livestock, their excrement, or

discharges may have contact shall be constructed of materials that

are substantially impervious to moisture and able to withstand

continued cleaning and disinfection.

(13) Electrical outlets shall be provided at the chute area for

branding purposes.

Standards for Handling Different Classes of Livestock

(By his or her initials, the operator of the facility shall signify

the class or classes of livestock that the facility will handle.)

(14) Cattle and bison:

--This facility will handle cattle and bison: [Initials of operator,

date]

--This facility will handle cattle and bison known to be brucellosis

reactors, suspects, or exposed: [Initials of operator, date]

--This facility will not handle cattle and bison known to be

brucellosis reactors, suspects, or exposed and such cattle and bison

will not be permitted to enter the facility: [Initials of operator,

date]

(i) Cattle and bison shall be received, handled, and released by

the facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71 and 78.

(ii) All brucellosis reactor, brucellosis suspect, and

brucellosis exposed cattle or bison arriving at the facility shall

be placed in quarantined pens and consigned from the facility only

in accordance with 9 CFR part 78.

(iii) Any cattle or bison classified as brucellosis reactors at

the facility shall be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 78,

placed in quarantined pens, and consigned from the facility only to

a recognized slaughtering establishment or an approved intermediate

handling facility in accordance with 9 CFR part 78.

(iv) Any cattle or bison classified as brucellosis exposed at

the facility shall be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 78,

placed in quarantined pens, and consigned from the facility only to

a recognized slaughtering establishment, approved intermediate

handling facility, quarantined feedlot, or farm of origin in

accordance with 9 CFR part 78.

(v) The identity of cattle from Class Free States or areas and

Class A States or areas shall be maintained.

(vi) The identity of cattle from Class B States or areas shall

be maintained, and test-eligible cattle from Class B States or areas

shall not be placed in pens with cattle from any other area until

they have fulfilled the requirements of 9 CFR part 78 for release

from the facility.

(vii) The identity of cattle from Class C States or areas shall

be maintained, and test-eligible cattle from Class C States or areas

shall not be placed in pens with cattle from any other area until

they have fulfilled the requirements of 9 CFR part 78 for release

from the facility.

(viii) The identity of cattle from quarantined areas shall be

maintained, and test-eligible cattle from quarantined areas shall

not be placed in pens with cattle from any other area until they

have fulfilled the requirements of 9 CFR part 78 for release from

the facility.

(ix) Test-eligible cattle that are penned with test-eligible

cattle from a lower class State or area, in violation of this

agreement, shall have the status of the State or area of lower class

for any subsequent movement.

(x) Laboratory space shall be furnished and maintained for

conducting diagnostic tests. All test reagents, testing equipment,

and documents relating to the State-Federal cooperative eradication

programs on the facility's premises shall be secured to prevent

misuse and theft. Adequate heat, cooling, electricity, water piped

to a properly drained sink, and sanitation shall be provided for

properly conducting diagnostic tests.

(15) Swine:

--This facility will handle breeding swine: [Initials of operator,

date]

--This facility will handle slaughter swine: [Initials of operator,

date]

--This facility will handle feeder swine: [Initials of operator,

date]

--This facility will handle pseudorabies reactor, suspect, or

exposed swine: [Initials of operator, date].

--This facility will not handle swine known to be pseudorabies

reactor, suspect, or exposed swine and such swine will not be

permitted to enter the facility: [Initials of operator, date].

(i) Swine shall be received, handled, and released by the

livestock facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71, 78, and

85.

(ii) Slaughter swine may be handled only on days when no feeder

swine or breeder swine are present at the facility, unless the

facility has provisions to keep slaughter swine physically separated

from feeder swine and breeder swine or unless those areas of the

facility used by slaughter swine have been cleaned and disinfected

before being used by feeder swine or breeder swine.

(iii) No feeder swine or breeder swine may remain in the

livestock facility for more than 72 hours, and no slaughter swine

may remain

[[Page 56163]]

in the livestock market for more than 120 hours.

(iv) Feeder swine shall be kept separate and apart from other

swine while in the livestock facility.

(v) No release shall be issued for the removal of feeder swine

or breeder swine from the livestock facility until the swine are

officially identified in accordance with applicable Federal or State

regulations and have been inspected by an APHIS representative,

State representative, or accredited veterinarian, and certified in

accordance with applicable Federal or State regulations.

(vi) No release shall be issued for the removal of slaughter

swine from the livestock facility unless the slaughter swine are

officially identified in accordance with applicable Federal or State

regulations, consigned for immediate slaughter or to another

slaughter market, and the consignee is identified on the release

document.

(16) Horses:

--This facility will handle horses: [Initials of operator, date]

--This facility will handle equine infectious anemia (EIA) reactors:

[Initials of operator, date]

--This facility will not handle horses known to be EIA reactors and

will not permit EIA reactors to enter the facility: [Initials of

operator, date]

(i) Horses shall be received, handled, and released by the

livestock facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71 and 75.

(ii) Any horses classified as EIA reactors and accepted by the

facility for sale shall be placed in quarantined pens at least 200

yards from all non-EIA-reactor horses or other animals, unless

moving out of the facility within 24 hours of arrival.

(iii) Any horses classified as EIA reactors and accepted by the

facility for sale shall be consigned from the facility only to a

slaughtering establishment or to the home farm of the reactor in

accordance with 9 CFR part 75.

(iv) Fly Control Program: The livestock facility shall have in

effect a fly control program utilizing at least one of the

following: Baits, fly strips, electric bug killers (``Fly Zappers,''

``Fly Snappers,'' or similar equipment), or the application of a

pesticide effective against flies, applied according to the schedule

and dosage recommended by the manufacturer for fly control.

Approvals

(17) Request for approval:

I hereby request approval for this facility to operate as an

approved livestock facility for the classes of livestock indicated

in paragraphs (14) through (16) of this agreement. I acknowledge

that I have received a copy of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78 and 85, and

acknowledge that I have been informed and understand that failure to

abide by the provisions of this agreement and the applicable

provisions of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, and 85 constitutes a basis for

the withdrawal of this approval. [Printed name and signature of

operator, date of signature]

(18) Pre-approval inspection of livestock facility conducted by

[printed name and title of APHIS representative] on [date of

inspection].

(19) Recommend approval:

[Printed name and signature of State animal health official,

date of signature]

[Printed name and signature of area veterinarian in charge, date

of signature]

(20) Approval granted:

[Printed name and signature of the Administrator, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, date of signature]

(b) Denial and withdrawal of approval. The Administrator may deny

or withdraw the approval of a livestock facility to receive livestock

moved interstate under this subchapter upon a determination that the

livestock facility is not or has not been maintained and operated in

accordance with the agreement set forth in paragraph (a) of this

section.

(1) In the case of a denial, the operator of the facility will be

informed of the reasons for the denial and may appeal the decision in

writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving

notification of the denial. The appeal must include all of the facts

and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the livestock

facility was wrongfully denied approval to receive livestock moved

interstate under this subchapter. The Administrator will grant or deny

the appeal in writing as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the

reason for his or her decision. If there is a conflict as to any

material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of

practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.

(2) In the case of withdrawal, before such action is taken, the

operator of the facility will be informed of the reasons for the

proposed withdrawal. The operator of the facility may appeal the

proposed withdrawal in writing to the Administrator within 10 days

after being informed of the reasons for the proposed withdrawal. The

appeal must include all of the facts and reasons upon which the person

relies to show that the reasons for the proposed withdrawal are

incorrect or do not support the withdrawal of the approval of the

livestock facility to receive livestock moved interstate under this

subchapter. The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal in writing

as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the reason for his or her

decision. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing

will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the

hearing will be adopted by the Administrator. However, withdrawal shall

become effective pending final determination in the proceeding when the

Administrator determines that such action is necessary to protect the

public health, interest, or safety. Such withdrawal shall be effective

upon oral or written notification, whichever is earlier, to the

operator of the facility. In the event of oral notification, written

confirmation shall be given as promptly as circumstances allow. This

withdrawal shall continue in effect pending the completion of the

proceeding, and any judicial review thereof, unless otherwise ordered

by the Administrator.

(3) Approval for a livestock facility to handle livestock under

this subchapter will be automatically withdrawn by the Administrator

when:

(i) The operator of the facility notifies the Administrator, in

writing, that the facility no longer handles livestock moved interstate

under this subchapter; or

(ii) The person who signed the agreement executed in accordance

with paragraph (a) of this section is no longer responsible for the

day-to-day operations of the facility.

PART 75--COMMUNICABLE DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES, PONIES, MULES, AND

ZEBRAS

15. The authority citation for part 75 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126, and

134-134h; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 75.4 [Amended]

16. Section 75.4 would be amended as follows:

a. The section heading would be revised to read as set forth below.

b. In paragraph (a), the definition of Approved stockyard would be

amended by removing the words ``this part'' and by adding the words

``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' in their place.

c. In paragraph (c), the paragraph heading would be amended by

removing the words ``, Diagnostic or Research Facilities, and

Stockyards'' and by adding the words ``and Diagnostic or Research

Facilities'' in their place, and paragraph (c)(3) and the ``Agreement''

following it would be removed.

d. In paragraph (d), the introductory text of the paragraph,

including the paragraph heading, and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) would

be revised to read as set forth below, and paragraph (d)(5) would be

removed.

Sec. 75.4 Interstate movement of equine infectious anemia reactors and

approval of laboratories, diagnostic facilities, and research

facilities.

* * * * *

(d) Denial and withdrawal of approval of laboratories and

diagnostic or research facilities. The Administrator

[[Page 56164]]

may deny or withdraw approval of any laboratory to conduct the official

test, or of any diagnostic or research facility to receive reactors

moved interstate, upon a determination that the laboratory or

diagnostic or research facility does not meet the criteria for approval

under paragraph (c) of this section.

(1) In the case of a denial, the operator of the laboratory or

facility will be informed of the reasons for denial and may appeal the

decision in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving

notification of the denial. The appeal must include all of the facts

and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the laboratory or

facility was wrongfully denied approval to conduct the official test or

receive reactors moved interstate. The Administrator will grant or deny

the appeal in writing as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the

reason for his or her decision. If there is a conflict as to any

material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of

practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.

(2) In the case of withdrawal, before such action is taken, the

operator of the laboratory or facility will be informed of the reasons

for the proposed withdrawal. The operator of the laboratory or facility

may appeal the proposed withdrawal in writing to the Administrator

within 10 days after being informed of the reasons for the proposed

withdrawal. The appeal must include all of the facts and reasons upon

which the person relies to show that the reasons for the proposed

withdrawal are incorrect or do not support the withdrawal of the

approval of the laboratory or facility to conduct the official test or

receive reactors moved interstate was or would be wrongfully withdrawn.

The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal in writing as promptly

as circumstances permit, stating the reason for his or her decision. If

there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing will be held to

resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the hearing will be

adopted by the Administrator. However, the withdrawal shall become

effective pending final determination in the proceeding when the

Administrator determines that such action is necessary to protect the

public health, interest, or safety. Such withdrawal shall be effective

upon oral or written notification, whichever is earlier, to the

operator of the laboratory or facility. In the event of oral

notification, written confirmation shall be given as promptly as

circumstances allow. The withdrawal shall continue in effect pending

the completion of the proceeding, and any judicial review thereof,

unless otherwise ordered by the Administrator.

* * * * *

PART 76--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

17. Part 76 would be removed and reserved.

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

18. The authority citation for part 78 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-114a-1, 114g, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-

126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 78.1 [Amended]

19. Section 78.1 would be amended as follows:

a. In the definition of Approved intermediate handling facility,

the reference ``Sec. 78.44'' would be removed and the words

``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' would be added in its place.

b. In the definition of Official eartag, the words ``nine-

character'' would be removed.

c. In the definition of Originate, paragraph (c), the reference

``Sec. 78.44'' would be removed and the words ``Sec. 71.20 of this

chapter'' would be added in its place.

d. In definition of Specifically approved stockyard, the reference

``Sec. 78.44'' would be removed and the words ``Sec. 71.20 of this

chapter'' would be added in its place.

20. Section 78.33 would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 78.33 Sows and boars.

(a) Sows and boars may be moved in interstate commerce for

slaughter or for sale for slaughter if they are identified in

accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this chapter either:

(1) Before being moved in interstate commerce and before being

mixed with swine from any other source; or

(2) After being moved in interstate commerce but before being mixed

with swine from any other source only if they have been moved directly

from their herd of origin to:

(i) A recognized slaughtering establishment; or

(ii) A stockyard, market agency, or dealer operating under the

Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).

(b) Sows and boars may be moved in interstate commerce for breeding

only if they are identified in accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this

chapter before being moved in interstate commerce and before being

mixed with swine from any other source, and the sows and boars either:

(1) Are from a validated brucellosis-free herd or a validated

brucellosis-free State and are accompanied by a certificate that

states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, that the swine

originated in a validated brucellosis-free herd or a validated

brucellosis-free State; or

(2) Have tested negative to an official test conducted within 30

days prior to interstate movement and are accompanied by a certificate

that states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, the dates

and results of the official tests.

(c) Sows and boars may be moved in interstate commerce for purposes

other than slaughter or breeding without restriction under this subpart

if they are identified in accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this chapter.

21. The title of subpart E would be amended by removing the words

``, and Specifically Approved Stockyards''.

Sec. 78.44 [Removed]

22. Section 78.44 would be removed.

PART 80--PARATUBERCULOSIS IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS

23. The authority citation for part 80 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114a-1, 115, 117, 120, 121, and

125; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 80.1 [Amended]

24. In Sec. 80.1, paragraph (j) would be amended by removing the

reference ``Sec. 78.44'' and by adding the words ``Sec. 71.20 of this

chapter'' in its place.

PART 85--PSEUDORABIES

25. The authority citation for part 85 would continue to read as

follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126,

134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 85.1 [Amended]

26. In Sec. 85.1, in the definition of Approved livestock market,

the words ``Sec. 76.18 (9 CFR 76.18)'' would be removed and the words

``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' would be added in their place.

27. In Sec. 85.1, in the definition of Slaughter market, the words

``Sec. 76.18 (9 CFR 76.18)'' would be removed and the words

``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' would be added in their place.

Sec. 85.12 [Amended]

28. Section 85.12 would be amended by removing the reference

``Sec. 76.30'' and by adding the reference ``Sec. 71.7'' in its place.

Sec. 85.13 [Amended]

29. Section 85.13 would be amended by removing the reference

``Sec. 76.31'' and

[[Page 56165]]

by adding the reference ``Sec. 71.7'' in its place.

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of October 1996.

A. Strating,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96-27975 Filed 10-30-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P