[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1406-1408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-624]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 1406]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 96-090-1]


Brucellosis; State and Area Classification Standards

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the brucellosis regulations to 
provide for the Administrator to conduct a special review of areas with 
fewer than 10,000 herds of cattle or bison in order to determine 
whether an area may qualify for Class A brucellosis status. Currently, 
the brucellosis regulations provide for such reviews to be conducted at 
the State level. Extending the provisions for special review to the 
area level would allow areas with a herd infection rate over 0.25 
percent, but that might otherwise meet the criteria for Class A status, 
to undergo a special review to determine whether Class A status should 
be conferred on the area.

DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or 
before March 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to 
Docket No. 96-090-1, 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. 96-090-1. 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. M.J. Gilsdorf, National 
Brucellosis Epidemiologist, Brucellosis Eradication Staff, VS, APHIS, 
4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228, (301) 734-7708; or 
E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Brucellosis is a contagious disease affecting animals and humans, 
caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. In its principal animal 
hosts, brucellosis is characterized by abortion and impaired fertility.
    Through a cooperative State and Federal effort, the United States 
is now approaching total eradication of the field strain Brucella 
abortus in domestic cattle and bison herds. As of November 30, 1996, 
there were only 40 known infected domestic cattle and bison herds, and 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) had declared 36 States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands free of the disease.
    The brucellosis regulations contained in 9 CFR part 78 (referred to 
below as the regulations) provide a system for classifying States or 
portions of States (areas) according to the rate of Brucella abortus 
infection present and the general effectiveness of the brucellosis 
control and eradication program conducted in the State or area. The 
classifications are Class Free, Class A, Class B, and Class C; States 
or areas that do not meet the minimum standards for Class C may be 
placed under Federal quarantine. At this point in the cooperative 
State/Federal brucellosis eradication program, all States have achieved 
either Class Free or Class A status; there are no classified areas. (An 
``area'' is defined in the regulations as ``that portion of any State 
which has a separate brucellosis classification under this part.'')
    The definition of ``Class A State or area'' provides, in part, that 
for a State or area to qualify for Class A status, no more than 0.25 
percent of all herds in the State or area (i.e., 2.5 herds per 1,000 
herds) may contain brucellosis reactors during any consecutive 12-month 
period. However, those regulations also provide for an exception to be 
made to that herd infection rate requirement when a State contains 
10,000 or fewer herds. In such cases, the Administrator may conduct a 
special review to determine whether a State with such a small herd 
population would qualify for Class A status; the location of herds in 
the State, sources of brucellosis, and the brucellosis control measures 
taken by the State are considered in that review. Based on the results 
of the review, the Administrator may determine that the State may be 
granted Class A status despite a herd infection rate higher than 0.25 
percent. As currently written, this special review exception applies 
only to States--no provision is made for a special review of an area 
with fewer than 10,000 herds.
    In some Class A States where there are only a few remaining 
affected herds, it is likely that most of the area within the State 
could qualify for Class Free area status. However, the lack of a 
special review exception to qualify areas as Class A is deterring the 
States from requesting that the brucellosis-free portions of the State 
be considered a Class Free area. This is because the remaining area 
within the State--i.e., that portion of the State that still contains 
affected herds--would likely have its status downgraded from Class A to 
Class B or lower because the ratio of affected herds to total herds in 
that area would place its herd infection rate above 0.25 percent. Given 
that the potentially downgraded area has met the criteria for, and 
enjoyed the benefits of, the Class A status held by the State as a 
whole, it does not appear reasonable to downgrade that area's status in 
the absence of any actual increase in the incidence of brucellosis 
within that area.
    Therefore, we are proposing to amend the definition of ``Class A 
State or area'' to extend the provisions for special review in States 
with fewer than 10,000 herds to areas with fewer than 10,000 herds. The 
same considerations that factor into the special review of States--
i.e., locations of herds, sources of brucellosis, and brucellosis 
control measures--would apply to the special review of areas. Thus, an 
area with fewer than 10,000 herds that has a herd infection rate 
greater than 0.25 percent, but that might otherwise be eligible for 
Class A status, could be the subject of a special review by APHIS. If 
the disposition of the herds within that area made the transmission of 
brucellosis from affected herds to other herds unlikely, if the sources 
of brucellosis infection within the brucellosis-affected herds were 
found to not present a threat

[[Page 1407]]

of also infecting other herds, and if the measures taken within the 
area to control brucellosis were found to be satisfactory, then the 
area could be granted Class A status. We believe that granting an area 
Class A status based on the satisfactory outcome of such a review would 
not result in an increased likelihood that brucellosis might be spread 
to adjacent States or areas, especially given that one of the factors 
that would be considered is the measures taken within the area to 
control the spread of brucellosis. If those measures were found to be 
inadequate, the area would not be granted Class A status.

Miscellaneous

    We are also proposing to amend several sections of the regulations 
that contain references to cattle without also referring to bison. In 
nearly all instances, those general provisions of the regulations that 
apply to cattle also apply to bison; however, several definitions in 
Sec. 78.1, as well as one sentence in Sec. 78.40 and several sentences 
in Sec. 78.44, refer only to cattle when the reference should include 
both cattle and bison. We would amend those three sections to rectify 
those omissions.

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 brucellosis regulations to 
provide for the Administrator to conduct a special review of areas with 
fewer than 10,000 herds of cattle or bison in order to determine 
whether an area may qualify for Class A brucellosis status. Extending 
the provisions for special review to the area level would allow areas 
with a herd infection rate over 0.25 percent, but that might otherwise 
meet the criteria for Class A status, to undergo a special review to 
determine whether Class A status could be conferred on the area.
    This proposed rule would allow the brucellosis status of some parts 
of a State to advance without triggering a concomitant decrease in the 
brucellosis status of the remaining areas within the State. Thus, the 
status quo in terms of testing requirements would be maintained in the 
area of the State that maintains Class A status, while testing 
requirements would be eased in that portion of the State gaining Class 
Free status, which would result in an overall positive economic effect 
due to decreased testing costs within the State.
    Test-eligible cattle and bison from Class A States or areas must 
have a negative blood test for brucellosis within 30 days prior to 
movement to be moved to a Class Free State or area. If a portion of a 
State were to qualify as a Class Free area and the remaining area 
within the State retained Class A status, the regulations would allow 
breeding cattle and bison to be moved from the Class Free area of the 
State to herds in Class Free States without prior testing for 
brucellosis. Therefore, cattle and bison owners in that portion of a 
State that qualified as a Class Free area would collectively realize a 
savings in testing expenses, which is, on average, approximately $5.00 
per head. The testing requirements for the movement of cattle and bison 
from the Class A area of the State would remain the same, so there 
would be neither an increase nor a decrease in testing costs for cattle 
and bison owners within the Class A area.
    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 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 in 9 CFR Part 78

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
    Accordingly, 9 CFR part 78 would be amended as follows:

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

    1. 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).

    2. Section 78.1 would be amended as follows:


Sec. 78.1  [Amended]

    a. In the definition of Certificate, paragraph (a), the second 
sentence, by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word 
``cattle''.
    b. In the definition of Class A State or area:
    i. In paragraph (a)(3), by adding the words ``or bison'' 
immediately after the word ``cattle'' each time it appears;
    ii. In paragraph (b)(1), the first sentence, by removing the word 
``cattle'' and by adding the words ``or areas'' after the words 
``except in States'';
    iii. In paragraph (b)(1), the second sentence, by adding the words 
``or areas'' after the word ``States''; and
    iv. In paragraph (b)(1), the third sentence, by adding the words 
``or area'' after the word ``State''.
    c. In the definition of Class B State or area, paragraph (a)(3), by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle'' 
each time it appears; and in paragraph (b)(1), the first sentence, by 
removing the word ``cattle''.
    d. In the definition of Class C State or area, paragraph (a)(3), by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle'' 
each time it appears; and in paragraph (b)(1), the first sentence, by 
removing the word ``cattle''.
    e. In the definition of Class Free State or area, in paragraph 
(a)(3), by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word 
``cattle'' each time it appears; and in paragraph (b)(1), by removing 
the word ``cattle'' both times it appears.
    f. By revising the heading and definition of Market cattle 
identification test cattle to read as set forth below.
    g. In the definition of Official brand inspection certificate, by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle''.
    h. In the definition of Official brand recording agency, by adding 
the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle''.
    i. In the definition of Originate, paragraph (c), by adding the 
words ``or

[[Page 1408]]

bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle'' both times it appears.
    j. In the definition of Permit for entry, by adding the words ``or 
bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle''.


Sec. 78.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Market cattle identification test cattle and bison. Cows and bulls 
2 years of age or over that have been moved to recognized slaughtering 
establishments, and test-eligible cattle and bison that are subjected 
to an official test for the purposes of movement at farms, ranches, 
auction markets, stockyards, quarantined feedlots, or other assembly 
points. Such cattle and bison shall be identified by an official eartag 
and/or United States Department of Agriculture backtag prior to or at 
the first market, stockyard, quarantined feedlot, or slaughtering 
establishment they reach.
* * * * *


Sec. 78.40  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 78.40, paragraph (c) would be amended by adding the 
words ``and bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle''.


Sec. 78.44  [Amended]

    4. Section 78.44 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (c), in paragraph (9) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle''.
    b. In paragraph (c), in paragraph (10) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the words ``of cattle''; by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the words ``test-
eligible cattle''; and by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately 
after the words ``other cattle''.
    c. In paragraph (c), in paragraph (11) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the words ``of cattle''; by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the words ``test-
eligible cattle''; and by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately 
after the words ``other cattle''.
    d. In paragraph (c), in paragraph (12) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the words ``of cattle''; by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the words ``test-
eligible cattle''; and by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately 
after the words ``other cattle''.
    e. In paragraph (c), in paragraph (13) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle'' both times 
it appears.
    f. In paragraph (d), in paragraph (9) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle''.
    g. In paragraph (d), in paragraph (10) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the words ``of cattle''; by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the words ``test-
eligible cattle''; and by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately 
after the words ``other cattle''.
    h. In paragraph (d), in paragraph (11) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the words ``of cattle''; by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the words ``test-
eligible cattle''; and by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately 
after the words ``other cattle''.
    i. In paragraph (d), in paragraph (12) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``and bison'' immediately after the words ``of cattle''; by 
adding the words ``or bison'' immediately after the words ``test-
eligible cattle''; and by adding the words ``or bison'' immediately 
after the words ``other cattle''.
    j. In paragraph (d), in paragraph (13) of the Agreement, by adding 
the words ``or bison'' immediately after the word ``cattle'' both times 
it appears.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of January 1997.
Donald W. Luchsinger,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-624 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P