[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 184 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57106-57113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 71 and 85

[Docket No. 98-023-1]


Interstate Movement of Swine Within a Production System

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to establish an alternative to the current 
requirements for moving swine interstate. Under this alternative, 
persons may move swine interstate without meeting individual swine 
identification and certain other requirements if they move the swine 
within a single swine production system, and if swine producers 
participating in that system sign agreements with the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service and involved State governments to monitor the 
health of animals moving within the swine production system and to 
facilitate traceback of these animals if necessary. This action would 
facilitate the interstate movement of swine while continuing to provide 
protection against the interstate spread of swine diseases. This action 
would affect persons engaged in swine production who regularly move 
swine interstate in their business operations.

DATES: We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all 
comments that we receive by November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comment and three copies to: Docket No. 98-
023-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 
4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
    Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 98-023-1.
    You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our 
reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
    APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related 
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who 
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnold Taft, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 
Road, Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The swine production industry has dramatically changed its business 
practices and operating procedures over the last generation. Fifty 
years ago swine production facilities were mainly small operations that 
typically produced a small number of swine (up to a few hundred). Often 
the same premises would breed swine, farrow them, wean the offspring, 
and feed them until they reached slaughter weight. Today, market 
economies have resulted in specialization that has created separate 
operations, often on separate premises, for the three stages of swine 
production--sow herds, nursery herds, and growing or finishing herds. 
Piglets are born and weaned in a sow herd, moved to a nursery herd for 
several weeks, then moved to a growing herd where they are fed until 
they reach slaughter weight after about 180 days.
    A single producer may own all three types of facilities, or may 
have standing relationships with facilities owned by another producer. 
The result is that swine may move through all three types of herds, 
often crossing State lines in the process, either without changing 
ownership, or changing ownership but remaining under the control of a 
single producer. This swine production model is distinctly different 
from the commercial model reflected in the current Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations for interstate movement 
of swine. When those regulations were written, swine (other than valued 
breeding stock) were generally moved interstate only when a change in 
ownership occurred, usually when they were shipped to slaughter. Today, 
millions of swine move interstate while they are raised for slaughter 
or breeding under a swine production system, and while they remain 
under the control of a single owner or a group of contractually related 
owners. In response to these changes in commercial practice, APHIS is 
reexamining its regulations for moving swine interstate, including 
requirements for swine identification and health certificates, to 
determine what requirements should apply to

[[Page 57107]]

swine moving interstate within a swine production system.
    The regulations in subchapter C of chapter I, title 9, Code of 
Federal Regulations, govern the interstate movement of animals to 
prevent the dissemination of livestock and poultry diseases in the 
United States. Parts 71 and 85 (referred to below as the regulations) 
are included in subchapter C. Part 71 relates to the interstate 
transportation of animals, poultry, and animal products and includes 
animal identification requirements for swine moving interstate. Part 85 
imposes requirements to control the spread of pseudorabies and includes 
health certificate and other requirements for the interstate movement 
of swine. The requirements of parts 71 and 85 that are relevant to this 
proposed rule are summarized in the following chart. This chart does 
not include the current requirements for swine moved interstate solely 
for slaughter, or to livestock markets for sale to slaughter, since 
this proposed rule would not change those requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Type of swine to be     Requirements for interstate
        Section           Purpose of interstate movement          moved                     movement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  71.19(a).........  Slaughter and nonslaughter.....  Other than Sec.       Official identification applied
                                                           71.19(c), which       no later than the first of the
                                                           covers swine moved    following events: Point of
                                                           as a group from the   first commingling in interstate
                                                           premises where they   movement with swine from
                                                           were born directly    another source; upon unloading
                                                           to slaughter.         in interstate commerce at any
                                                                                 livestock market; upon transfer
                                                                                 of ownership in interstate
                                                                                 commerce; or upon arrival in
                                                                                 interstate commerce at the
                                                                                 final destination.
Sec.  85.7(b)(1).......  Nonslaughter...................  Swine not vaccinated  No identification requirement.
                                                           for pseudorabies
                                                           and not known to be
                                                           infected with or
                                                           exposed to
                                                           pseudorabies, moved
                                                           interstate from a
                                                           qualified
                                                           pseudorabies
                                                           negative herd
                                                           directly to a
                                                           feedlot,
                                                           quarantined
                                                           feedlot, or
                                                           quarantined herd.
Sec.  85.7(b)(2).......  Nonslaughter...................  Swine not vaccinated  Accompanied by a certificate
                                                           for pseudorabies      that is delivered to the
                                                           and not known to be   consignee that describes the
                                                           infected with or      identification required by Sec.
                                                           exposed to             71.19 and states that each
                                                           pseudorabies, moved   animal: (A) was subjected to an
                                                           interstate from any   official pseudorabies serologic
                                                           herd directly to a    test within 30 days prior to
                                                           feedlot,              the interstate movement and was
                                                           quarantined           found negative, the test date,
                                                           feedlot, or           and the name of the laboratory
                                                           quarantined herd.     that conducted the test; or (B)
                                                                                 is part of a currently
                                                                                 recognized qualified
                                                                                 pseudorabies negative herd, and
                                                                                 the date of the last qualifying
                                                                                 test; or (C) is part of a
                                                                                 pseudorabies controlled
                                                                                 vaccinated herd and is one of
                                                                                 the offspring that was
                                                                                 subjected to the official
                                                                                 pseudorabies serologic test,
                                                                                 and the date of the last test
                                                                                 to maintain that status.
Sec.  85.7(b)(3).......  Nonslaughter...................  Swine not vaccinated  Accompanied by an owner-shipper
                                                           for pseudorabies      statement and a certificate
                                                           and not known to be   that are delivered to the
                                                           infected with or      consignee; the certificate
                                                           exposed to            describes the identification
                                                           pseudorabies, moved   required by Sec.  71.19; and
                                                           interstate from any   approval for the interstate
                                                           herd directly to a    movement has been issued by the
                                                           feedlot,              State animal health official of
                                                           quarantined           the State of destination prior
                                                           feedlot, or           to movement.
                                                           quarantined herd,
                                                           when moved from a
                                                           State which
                                                           requires the State
                                                           animal health
                                                           official to be
                                                           immediately
                                                           notified of any
                                                           suspected or
                                                           confirmed case of
                                                           pseudorabies in
                                                           that State and
                                                           which requires that
                                                           exposed or infected
                                                           livestock be
                                                           quarantined.
Sec.  85.7(c)..........  Nonslaughter...................  Swine not vaccinated  Accompanied by a certificate
                                                           for pseudorabies      that is delivered to the
                                                           and not known to be   consignee that describes the
                                                           infected with or      identification required by Sec.
                                                           exposed to             71.19 and states that each
                                                           pseudorabies, moved   animal: (A) was subjected to an
                                                           interstate from any   official pseudorabies serologic
                                                           herd to any           test within 30 days prior to
                                                           destination.          the interstate movement and was
                                                                                 found negative, the test date,
                                                                                 and the name of the laboratory
                                                                                 that conducted the test; or (B)
                                                                                 is part of a currently
                                                                                 recognized qualified
                                                                                 pseudorabies negative herd, and
                                                                                 the date of the last qualifying
                                                                                 test; or (C) is part of a
                                                                                 pseudorabies controlled
                                                                                 vaccinated herd and is one of
                                                                                 the offspring that was
                                                                                 subjected to the official
                                                                                 pseudorabies serologic test,
                                                                                 and the date of the last test
                                                                                 to maintain that status.
Sec.  85.8(a)..........  Nonslaughter...................  Swine not known to    No requirement.
                                                           be infected with or
                                                           exposed to
                                                           pseudorabies, moved
                                                           interstate from a
                                                           qualified negative
                                                           gene-altered
                                                           vaccinated herd
                                                           directly to a
                                                           feedlot or
                                                           quarantined feedlot.

[[Page 57108]]

 
Sec.  85.8(b)..........  Nonslaughter...................  All other movements   Accompanied by a certificate
                                                           from a qualified      that is delivered to the
                                                           negative gene-        consignee that describes the
                                                           altered vaccinated    identification required by Sec.
                                                           herd of swine not      71.19 and that states: (A) the
                                                           known to be           swine are from a qualified
                                                           infected with or      negative gene-altered
                                                           exposed to            vaccinated herd; (B) the date
                                                           pseudorabies.         of the herd's last qualifying
                                                                                 test; and (C) if the swine to
                                                                                 be moved are official gene-
                                                                                 altered pseudorabies
                                                                                 vaccinates, the official gene-
                                                                                 altered pseudorabies vaccine
                                                                                 used in the herd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under Sec. 71.19, swine moved in interstate commerce, 
except for certain swine moving directly to slaughter, must be 
individually identified by means approved by the APHIS Administrator 
and listed in Sec. 71.19(b). Under Sec. Sec. 85.7 and 85.8, swine moved 
in interstate commerce must also meet requirements to prevent the 
spread of pseudorabies. With a few exceptions, Sec. Sec. 85.7 and 85.8 
require that swine moved interstate be accompanied by a certificate 
that contains certain statements about the animals' pseudorabies 
status.
    This proposed rule would not replace the requirements described 
above; swine producers (owners of sow farms, nurseries, and finishing 
operations) could continue to move swine interstate in accordance with 
these requirements. We are proposing to amend parts 71 and 85 by 
providing an alternative to these requirements. This alternative could 
be used by any swine producer who moves swine interstate in the course 
of operations. Under the proposed alternative, producers could move 
swine interstate without meeting the requirements for individual 
identification and certification. However, State animal health 
officials in both the sending and receiving States would have to agree 
to allow the movement of swine according to this proposed alternative 
by signing a swine production health plan, described below. Movement 
under this proposed alternative would not be allowed to or from States 
that do not agree to the proposed provisions. In those States that do 
not agree to this proposed alternative, swine moving interstate would 
have to move in accordance with the current requirements for individual 
animal identification and certification.
    We anticipate that the proposed alternative would be used primarily 
for the movement of swine being raised for slaughter, but breeder swine 
would also be allowed to move under the proposed alternative. However, 
the proposed alternative would not apply to the final movement of swine 
to slaughter or to livestock markets for sale to slaughter; such swine 
would have to meet the current requirements for individual animal 
identification and certification. We do not propose to allow this new 
alternative for swine moving in slaughter channels because the 
alternative is designed for swine moving within a production system 
where they are under control of a single owner, or a group of 
contractually connected owners. When swine move to slaughter, they come 
under the control of a larger and diverse group of markets, 
transporters, brokers, etc., that do not have consistent and unified 
control over the animals--a necessary ingredient of the proposed 
alternative described below.
    If this proposal is adopted, producers, under this alternative 
could move swine interstate from sow farms to nurseries to growing or 
finishing operations without individually identifying the animals or 
obtaining health certificates for them if they meet the following 
requirements, discussed in detail below:
     The producers have a written swine production health plan 
(SPHP) signed by the producer(s), the acrredited veterinarian(s) for 
the premises, APHIS, and the States in which the swine production 
system has premises.
     One or more accredited veterinarians identified in the 
SPHP will regularly visit each premises in the swine production system 
to inspect and test swine and will continually monitor the health of 
the swine in the swine production system. Swine may only be moved 
interstate if they have been found free from signs of any communicable 
disease during the most recent inspection of the premises by the swine 
production system accredited veterinarian.
     The SPHP describes a records system maintained by the 
producers to document that health status.
     Prior to each interstate movement of swine between 
premises within a production system, an interstate swine movement 
report must be sent to APHIS, the accredited veterinarian for the 
premises, and the sending and receiving States documenting the number, 
type, and health status of the swine being moved.

Swine Production Health Plan

    A central feature of this proposal would be the SPHP. In effect, 
the SPHP would be an enduring agreement maintained on file with swine 
producers, affected States, and APHIS, that takes the place of 
individual health certificates or State permits that would otherwise be 
required to accompany the movement of swine.
    The SPHP would be a written plan developed for all premises in a 
swine production system to maintain the health of the swine and detect 
signs of communicable disease. The SPHP would have to identify all 
premises that are part of the swine production system and provide for 
an accredited veterinarian to perform regular inspections of all 
premises and swine on the premises at intervals no greater than 30 
days. The SPHP would also provide that, upon request, APHIS 
representatives and State animal health officials will have access to 
any premises in a swine production system to inspect animals and review 
records. The SPHP would also have to authorize access for the 
accredited veterinarian(s) hired by the producer and identified in the 
SPHP, since the accredited veterinarian(s) would be the person(s) 
primarily responsible for monitoring and documenting the health of the 
swine through a system of regular visits to inspect and test the swine. 
The SPHP would also have to document any specific animal health 
requirements of a State that is a signatory to the SPHP; for instance, 
if a State requires that swine moved into that State be tested for 
particular diseases, or that herds be monitored in particular ways, the 
SPHP would have to contain those requirements. Additionally, the SPHP 
would have to describe the recordkeeping system of the swine production 
system. The SPHP would not be valid unless it is signed by all 
producers in the swine production system, the swine production system 
accredited veterinarian(s), an APHIS representative, and the State 
animal health official from each State in which the swine production 
system has premises. To aid enforcement and compliance, the SPHP would 
also have

[[Page 57109]]

to include a declaration by all producers in the swine production 
system acknowledging that failure to abide by the provisions of the 
SPHP and the applicable provisions of the regulations constitutes a 
basis for the cancellation of the SPHP.
    As noted above, the SPHP would not be valid unless it is signed by 
each producer participating in the swine production system, the swine 
production system accredited veterinarian(s), an APHIS representative, 
and the State animal health official from each State in which the swine 
production system has premises. The State animal health official is 
defined by Sec. 71.1 and Sec. 85.1 as the official responsible for a 
State's livestock and poultry disease control and eradication programs.
    The requirement that a State animal health official must sign and 
approve each SPHP gives States the opportunity to decide whether or not 
to allow swine to move from or into their States under the proposed 
alternative, which eliminates the requirements for a health certificate 
and individual animal identification. This system would give individual 
State governments the opportunity to discuss the contents of SPHP's 
with the owners of swine production systems. This would ensure that 
each SPHP contains swine health maintenance procedures that will 
safeguard against health concerns that are of particular importance to 
that State and ensure that the SPHP is an effective substitute for 
other paperwork the State might have formerly required, e.g., State 
certificates of veterinary inspection or health certificates. If a 
State animal health official does not sign an SPHP, swine in that 
production system could only move into that State with the paperwork 
and individual identification currently required by parts 71 and 85.
    A State or swine production system could withdraw from an SPHP by 
giving written notice to the other signatories. Withdrawal shall become 
effective upon the date specified by the State animal health official 
or the swine production system in the written notice, but for shipments 
in transit, withdrawal shall become effective 7 days after the date of 
such notice. This 7-day delay is proposed to allow arrival of shipments 
in transit. If one State withdraws from an SPHP signed by other States, 
a swine production system could not move swine into or from the 
withdrawing State under the conditions of the canceled SPHP, but the 
SPHP would remain in effect for the swine production system's premises 
in other States.
    An SPHP could be canceled by the Administrator if the swine 
production system fails to abide by requirements in the SPHP or other 
requirements of our regulations. If the Administrator cancels an SPHP, 
swine in that production system could only move interstate under the 
other requirements of the regulations, which in many cases would 
require individual animal identification and health certificates. 
Finally, the swine production system itself could also cancel an SPHP 
it has signed at any time, or withdraw one or more of its premises from 
the SPHP.

Role of Accredited Veterinarian

    The SPHP would have to identify one or more accredited 
veterinarians who would be under contract with the swine production 
system to visit all premises within the swine production system at 
least once every 30 days to conduct general health assessments of the 
animals. There may be several accredited veterinarians identified in 
the SPHP, since different veterinarians may serve different premises. 
These regular visits by the accredited veterinarian(s) would be the 
primary means of ensuring that swine on a particular premises are 
maintained in continuing good health, and, therefore, could be safely 
moved interstate under this alternative. The accredited veterinarian(s) 
would have to document the health status of swine on a premises with 
regard to pseudorabies, among other diseases, in records created by the 
accredited veterinarian and kept by the producer; e.g., a herd 
inventory with notations documenting the health of the inventoried 
animals. These records and the proposed interstate swine movement 
report (ISMR), discussed below, will serve to document the health of 
animals, rather than individual health certificates.

Records System

    The system of records that would be required is a crucial part of 
this proposal. It must be effective enough to replace the current 
requirement for individual identification of swine. Individual swine 
identification is an important tool used in efforts to trace the 
movement of diseased swine and identify premises affected by the 
disease. In order for a records system to substitute for individual 
animal identification, records of the operations on the premises (e.g., 
the way animals are assigned to pens and the extent to which different 
lots are commingled) must allow any animal to be traced back to its 
previous premises without benefit of individual animal identification. 
The receiving premises must not commingle swine received from different 
premises in a manner that prevents identification of the premises that 
sent particular swine or groups of swine. We propose that this may be 
achieved by use of permanent premises or individual identification mark 
on animals, by keeping groups of animals received from one premises 
physically separate from animals received from other premises, or by 
any other effective means. APHIS would not approve an SPHP unless it 
described a records system that would adequately document the health of 
animals on a premises and allow traceback of animals from one premises 
to another.
    We would not dictate the exact type of recordkeeping system that 
must be used, but the system chosen would need to allow complete 
traceback of any animal to the previous premises. There are several 
approaches producers might take to maintain an adequate records system. 
First, they might choose to use permanent premises or individual animal 
identification, coupled with shipping records that record the movements 
of each animal. (While individual animal identification would not be 
required by this proposal, it could be employed by swine production 
systems that choose to use it.) Alternatively, all animals on a 
premises might be marked with a permanent premises identification mark. 
When the animals are moved to another premises, this mark would 
indicate which premises they came from. Another approach could be to 
move animals in intact groups and maintain the groups separately on the 
new premises, with appropriate records indicating where each group of 
animals originated. This proposal would allow producers to use any of 
these approaches or any other effective system that maintains records 
adequate to trace animals back to their earlier premises.
    We also propose to require producers to maintain in their 
recordkeeping systems copies of the SPHP and all ISMR's that relate to 
their premises, as well as copies of any reports that the accredited 
veterinarian issues documenting the health status of the swine on the 
premises. These records would have to be kept for 3 years after their 
creation, to provide a historical record in case it is necessary for 
APHIS to investigate violations of the regulations.

Interstate Swine Movement Report

    We also propose that the swine production system would have to 
notify its accredited veterinarian(s), APHIS, and State regulatory 
officials in the States of origin and destination when

[[Page 57110]]

swine are ready to be moved interstate. The producer would do this by 
sending these signatories an ISMR prior to each time swine are moved 
interstate. APHIS is exploring the possibility that, in some cases, the 
ISMR could be in electronic rather than a paper form, making it very 
easy for a producer to meet the ISMR requirement. The ISMR would have 
to contain the name of the swine production system; the name, location, 
and premises identification number of the premises from which the swine 
are to be moved and the premises to which the swine will be moved; the 
date of movement; and the number, age, and type (e.g., feeder pigs, 
market hogs, culled sows and boars) of swine to be moved. The ISMR 
would also have to contain a description of any individual or group 
identification associated with the swine, the name of the accredited 
veterinarian who regularly inspects animals on the premises, the 
pseudorabies status under part 85 of the herd from which the swine are 
moved, and an accurate statement that swine on the premises have been 
inspected and found free from signs of communicable disease by the 
accredited veterinarian within the past 30 days.

Relationship of Proposed Action to Universal Animal Identification 
Initiatives

    The United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug 
Administration are currently supporting various initiatives to 
encourage livestock industries to expand individual identification of 
animals, in order to assist these agencies in their programs addressing 
food safety and animal health issues. Agencies addressing these issues 
often find it useful to be able to trace an animal back from slaughter, 
through all its intermediate locations, to its farm of origin. One way 
to provide this tool is to apply a unique identification to each animal 
soon after birth, and maintain databases of records documenting the 
movement of each animal until the time of its slaughter or other 
disposal.
    APHIS is involved in testing this lifelong animal identification 
approach by means of several projects and pilots with groups such as 
the Livestock Conservation Institute, the dairy industry's National 
Farm Animal Identification and Records project, various State 
governments, and other industry associations. However, the current 
proposal provides an alternative means to reach the same goal, i.e., to 
provide a way to trace swine from slaughter back to the farm of origin, 
when necessary. To ensure that such traceback is possible, the proposal 
uses a combination of individual animal identification (required when 
swine make their final interstate movement to slaughter) along with 
other records and forms discussed in this proposal (e.g., swine 
production system records and interstate swine movement reports). APHIS 
remains committed to supporting voluntary industry efforts to adopt 
universal individual animal identification, but also supports providing 
alternative tools that provide the information needed for successful 
traceback of animals.

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.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 et seq.) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic effects of our rules on small 
entities. Our analysis follows.
    This proposed rule would offer an alternative to the current 
requirements for moving swine interstate.\1\ Under the proposal, 
producers within a single production system (e.g., owners of sow farms, 
nurseries, and growing or finishing operations) could move swine 
interstate without meeting the current identification and certification 
requirements if they: (1) Sign a swine health production plan with 
APHIS and the sending and receiving States; (2) have an accredited 
veterinarian visit the premises at least once every 30 days to assess 
and document the general health of the animals; (3) maintain a 
recordkeeping system sufficiently adequate to enable APHIS or State 
inspectors to trace an animal back to its herd of origin; and (4) 
notify the accredited veterinarian, APHIS, and State regulatory 
officials in the States of origin and destination when swine are ready 
to be moved interstate. The proposal would not mandate a specific type 
of recordkeeping system; those in the production system would be free 
to choose their own system of records, as long as APHIS determines that 
the system meets the requirements of Sec. 71.19(h)(6) and effectively 
documents animal health and allows for animal traceback. Also, the 
formal written agreement would have to be approved and signed by the 
producers participating in the swine production system, APHIS, and the 
relevant States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposal would not apply to swine moving to slaughter; 
those animals would have to continue to meet the current 
requirements for individual identification and certification, as 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary economic benefits to producers would be that they could 
avoid the costs of individually identifying animals and obtaining 
individual animal health certificates for each shipment. Recordkeeping 
costs under the current requirements and under this proposed 
alternative would be comparable, although some different records 
(copies of SPHP's and ISMR's) would be maintained under the proposed 
alternative.
    The proposed rule would benefit U.S. swine producers who move their 
animals interstate within a single production system. Currently, such 
systems are used primarily by the largest producers. Producers would be 
able to realize the benefits of this rule with little or no additional 
cost, since many have most of the major elements of the proposed 
recordkeeping system (records indicating the source and disposition of 
swine and identifying which swine are grouped together) already in 
place.
    As an example of the potential cost savings for producers from not 
having to individually identify animals, we estimate that the material 
cost for each identification eartag is about 5 cents and that it takes 
one person 1 hour to attach about 250 eartags. For a large producer who 
moves 1 million swine interstate each year with an eartag, the annual 
savings if the producer no longer uses eartags would be about $50,000 
in materials and about $40,000 in labor (assuming a labor rate of $10/
hr.). Health certificates are typically issued on a per shipment basis, 
with one certificate issued for all swine in a truckload. For a 
producer who moves 1 million swine interstate each year, the annual 
cost of obtaining health certificates is about $140,000 (assuming 250 
swine per shipment and a veterinarian fee of $35 per shipment).\2\ 
Under the proposal, individual identification and health certificates 
would be replaced by the records kept in accordance with the SPHP and 
the ISMR's issued for interstate movements attesting that the swine had 
been found healthy by an accredited veterinarian

[[Page 57111]]

within the 30 days preceding the interstate movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Producers, especially the larger ones, typically obtain 
health certificates from accredited veterinarians who are 
unaffiliated with APHIS or the State agricultural agencies. The 
veterinarian fee of $35 is an estimate based on telephone 
consultation with several accredited veterinarians; such fees can 
vary depending on individual circumstances. In come cases, 
veterinarians charge no fee for issuing a health certificate, 
especially when they are dealing with producers for whom they 
provide services on a regular, routine basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement in the SPHP that an accredited veterinarian must 
visit the premises at least once every 30 days to assess the general 
health of the animals would not constitute an additional burden for 
producers, since most are already visited by a veterinarian on that 
basis.
    As indicated above, the swine production system would eliminate the 
need for producers to obtain health certificates from accredited 
veterinarians on an individual shipment basis, a situation which, on 
the surface, would seem to have a negative impact on the entity's 
income. However, most accredited veterinarians generate little or no 
income from issuing health certificates, charging either a nominal fee 
or no fee at all, especially when they are dealing with producers for 
whom they provide services on a regular, routine basis. This change 
should allow them to make more productive use of their time by allowing 
them to schedule regular health maintenance visits to a facility, 
rather than visiting when called, possibly at inconvenient times, to 
issue certificates just prior to movement. This change would also give 
producers more flexibility in scheduling movements of swine.

Effects on Small Entities

    The proposed rule would primarily benefit U.S. swine producers who 
move their animals interstate within a single production system. 
Currently, such systems are used primarily by the largest producers, 
most of whom do not appear to be small in size by U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) criteria. The SBA considers a hog farm or feedlot 
small if its annual receipts are $0.5 million or less. We estimate 
that, of the 114,380 hog and pig operations in the United States, no 
more than about 4 percent (or 4,575) currently participate in multi-
State production systems and, of those that do participate, most rank 
among the industry's largest producers.\3\ Census data from the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) indicate that, in 1997, 
the per farm average value of pigs and hogs sold for the top 4 percent 
of U.S. farms was in excess of $0.5 million.\4\ NASS' data suggests, 
therefore, that many of the producers that currently participate in 
interstate production systems are not small by SBA standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Sources: Agricultural Statistics, 1999. The hog and pig 
operation count is as of December 1, 1998.
    \4\ See 1997 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1, Part 51, United 
States. As used here, the word ``top'' refers to those farms with 
the highest number of animals sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule could encourage more small producer participation 
in the future, since it would provide them with an economic incentive 
to network together into one production system. For some small 
producers, especially those operating on thin profit margins, this 
opportunity to reduce costs via production networks could make the 
difference between economic viability and insolvency. At this time, 
however, there is no basis to conclude that the number of small 
producers who might form networks in the future would be substantial.
    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

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, 
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 98-023-1. 
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 98-023-1, 
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River 
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 
OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its 
full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this 
proposed rule.
    This proposed rule would create three new information collection 
and recordkeeping requirements. The first is the swine production 
health plan (SPHP) for each participating swine production system. This 
written plan would be jointly developed and signed by all the swine 
producers moving swine within a production system, APHIS, and the 
involved State animal health officials. This plan would be written when 
a swine production system is established under the regulations and 
might be amended by mutual consent from time to time.
    This proposed rule would also require that swine producers submit a 
report, the interstate swine movement report, each time swine are moved 
interstate from one premises to another. This report would list the 
number and types of animals moved, identify the premises they are moved 
from and to, and give the date of movement and certain other 
information about the swine production system. We expect that an online 
system will be developed in the near future that will allow a producer 
to enter the necessary data in an electronic form and automatically 
route it to the required report recipients.
    This proposed rule would also require a system of records each 
participating producer would have to keep to document the health of 
animals in the herd and the movement of animals between premises in the 
swine production system. This record system is needed to ensure that 
only healthy animals are moved and to allow State or APHIS officials to 
trace animals back to their premises of origin when necessary.
    Except for developing the SPHP, most of this burden involves 
keeping records or submitting reports of movement data that are already 
kept by producers in one form or another for normal business purposes. 
Producers who choose to operate under the proposed system would be 
freed from two other information collection and recordkeeping burdens 
that apply under the existing regulations--individual animal 
identification and health certificates required by parts 71 and 85.
    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected 
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;

[[Page 57112]]

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who 
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses).
    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 3 minutes per response.
    Respondents: Swine producers operating within swine production 
systems.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 2,000.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 51.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 51,000.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4,500 hours.
    It should also be noted that for the purpose of these calculations, 
we used only the total annual hours necessary to generate the 
Interstate Swine Movement Reports (4,500 hours), and not the initial 
4,000 hours needed to complete the Swine Production Health Plans. The 
creation of a Swine Production Health Plan is not an annual activity; 
it is generated only once and then kept on file.
    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from: Ms. 
Laura Cahall, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-
5360.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 71

    Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 85

    Animal diseases, Livestock, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 71 and 85 as follows:

PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 would be revised 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 371.4.

    2. In Sec. 71.1, the following definitions would be added in 
alphabetical order:


Sec. 71.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Interstate swine movement report. A paper or electronic document 
signed by a producer moving swine giving notice that a group of animals 
is being moved across State lines in a swine production system. This 
document must contain the name of the swine production system, the 
name, location, and premises identification number of the premises from 
which the swine are to be moved, the name, location, and premises 
identification number of the premises to which the swine are to be 
moved, the date of movement, and the number, age, and type of swine to 
be moved. This document must also contain a description of any 
individual or group identification associated with the swine, the name 
of the swine production system accredited veterinarians, the 
pseudorabies status under part 85 of this chapter of the herd from 
which the swine are to be moved, and an accurate statement that swine 
on the premises from which the swine are to be moved have been 
inspected by the swine production system accredited veterinarian(s) 
within 30 days prior to the interstate movement and consistent with the 
dates specified by the premises' swine production health plan and found 
free from signs of communicable disease.
* * * * *
    Swine production health plan. A written agreement developed for one 
or more premises in a swine production system designed to maintain the 
health of the swine and detect signs of communicable disease. The plan 
must identify all premises that are part of the swine production system 
and must provide for regular inspections of all premises and swine on 
the premises, at intervals no greater than 30 days, by the swine 
production system accredited veterinarian(s). The plan must also 
describe the recordkeeping system of the swine production system. The 
plan must also list any specific animal health requirements of States 
that are signatory to the plan. The plan will not be valid unless it is 
signed by all of the producers participating in the swine production 
system, the swine production system accredited veterinarian(s), an 
APHIS representative, and the State animal health official from each 
State in which the swine production system has premises. In the plan, 
the producer moving the swine must acknowledge that he or she has been 
informed of and understands that failure to abide by the provisions of 
the plan and the applicable provisions of this part and part 85 
constitutes a basis for the cancellation of the swine production health 
plan.
    Swine production system. A swine production enterprise that 
consists of multiple sites of production, i.e., sow herds, nursery 
herds, and growing or finishing herds, that are connected by ownership 
or contractual relationships, between which swine move while remaining 
under the control of a single owner or a group of contractually 
connected owners.
    Swine production system accredited veterinarian. An accredited 
veterinarian who is named in a swine production health plan for a 
premises within a swine production system and who performs inspection 
of such premises and animals and other duties related to the movement 
of swine in a swine production system.
* * * * *
    3. Section 71.19 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(1), introductory text, by removing the words 
``paragraph (c)'' and adding in their place the words ``paragraphs (c) 
and (h)''.
    b. By adding new paragraphs (h) and (i).


Sec. 71.19  Identification of swine in interstate commerce.

* * * * *
    (h) Swine moving interstate within a swine production system. Swine 
within a swine production system are not required to be individually 
identified when moved in interstate commerce under the following 
conditions:
    (1) The swine may be moved interstate only to another premises 
owned and operated by the same swine production system.
    (2) The swine production system must operate under a valid swine 
production health plan, in which both the sending and receiving States 
have agreed to allow the movement.
    (3) The swine must have been found free from signs of any 
communicable disease during the most recent inspection of the premises 
by the swine production system accredited veterinarian(s).
    (4) Prior to the movement of any swine, the producer(s) moving 
swine must deliver the required interstate swine movement report to the 
following individuals identified in the swine production health plan:
    (i) The APHIS representative;
    (ii) The swine production system accredited veterinarian for the 
premises from which the swine are to be moved; and,

[[Page 57113]]

    (iii) The State animal health officials for the sending and 
receiving States, and any other State employees designated by the State 
animal health officials.
    (5) The receiving premises must not commingle swine received from 
different premises in a manner that prevents identification of the 
premises that sent the swine or groups of swine. This may be achieved 
by use of permanent premises or individual identification marks on 
animals, by keeping groups of animals received from one premises 
physically separate from animals received from other premises, or by 
any other effective means.
    (6) Each premises must maintain, for 3 years after their date of 
creation, records that will allow an APHIS representative or State 
animal health official to trace any animal on the premises back to its 
earlier premises and its herd of origin, and must maintain copies of 
each swine production health plan signed by the producer, all 
interstate swine movement reports issued by the producer, and all 
reports the swine production system accredited veterinarian(s) issue 
documenting the health status of the swine on the premises.
    (7) Each premises must allow APHIS representatives and State animal 
health officials access to the premises upon request to inspect animals 
and review records.
    (i) Cancellation of and withdrawal from a swine production health 
plan. The following procedures apply to cancellation of, or withdrawal 
from, a swine production health plan:
    (1) A State animal health official may cancel his or her State's 
participation in a swine production health plan by giving written 
notice to all swine producers, APHIS representatives, accredited 
veterinarians, and other State animal health officials listed in the 
plan. Withdrawal shall be effective upon the date specified by the 
State animal health official in the notice, but for shipments in 
transit, withdrawal shall become effective 7 days after the date of 
such notice. Upon withdrawal of a State, the swine production health 
plan shall continue to operate among the other States and parties 
signatory to the plan.
    (2) A swine production system may cancel a swine production health 
plan, or withdraw one or more of its premises from participation in the 
plan, upon giving written notice to the Administrator and to the 
accredited veterinarians and State animal health officials listed in 
the plan. Withdrawal shall be effective upon the date specified by the 
swine production system in the written notice, but for shipments in 
transit withdrawal shall become effective 7 days after the date of such 
notice.
    (3) The Administrator may cancel a swine production health plan by 
giving written notice to all swine producers, accredited veterinarians, 
and State animal health officials listed in the plan. The Administrator 
shall cancel a swine production health plan after determining that 
swine movements within the swine production system have occurred that 
were not in compliance with the swine production health plan or with 
other requirements of this chapter. Before a swine health production 
plan is canceled, an APHIS representative will inform a representative 
of the swine production system of the reasons for the proposed 
cancellation. The swine production system may appeal the proposed 
cancellation in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after being 
informed of the reasons for the proposed cancellation. The appeal must 
include all of the facts and reasons upon which the swine production 
system relies to show that the reasons for the proposed cancellation 
are incorrect or do not support the cancellation. 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, cancellation of the disputed swine 
production health plan shall become effective pending final 
determination in the proceeding if the Administrator determines that 
such action is necessary to protect the public's health, interest, or 
safety. Such cancellation shall become effective upon oral or written 
notification, whichever is earlier, to the swine production system 
representative. In the event of oral notification, written confirmation 
shall be given as promptly as circumstances allow. This cancellation 
shall continue in effect pending the completion of the proceeding, and 
any judicial review thereof, unless otherwise ordered by the 
Administrator.

PART 85--PSEUDORABIES

    1. The authority citation for part 85 would be revised 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 371.4.


Sec. 85.7  [Amended]

    2. Section 85.7 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(3)(i) introductory text, by removing the phrase 
``The swine'' and adding in its place the phrase ``Unless the swine are 
moving interstate in a swine production system in compliance with 
Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter, the swine''.
    b. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), by removing the phrase ``The swine are 
accompanied by a certificate'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``Unless the swine are moving interstate in a swine production system 
in compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter, the swine are 
accompanied by a certificate''.
    c. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the phrase ``The swine are 
accompanied by a certificate'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``Unless the swine are moving interstate in a swine production system 
in compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter, the swine are 
accompanied by a certificate''.
    3. Section 85.8 would be amended by removing the period at the end 
of paragraph (a)(3) and adding in its place ``; or''; and by adding a 
new paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 85.8  Interstate movement of swine from a qualified negative gene-
altered vaccinated herd.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The swine are moved interstate in a swine production system in 
compliance with Sec. 71.19(h) of this chapter.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of September 2000.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 00-24132 Filed 9-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P