[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28167-28168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-12994]



[[Page 28167]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 02-069-1]


Interstate Movement of Swine Within a Production System; 
Inspection of Swine

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations pertaining to the 
interstate movement of swine by limiting the requirement for mandatory 
veterinary inspections, at intervals of 30 days or less, to swine that 
are or will be in the process of moving interstate within a swine 
production system and to the premises on which such swine are housed. 
With this proposed change, swine that have arrived at a finishing house 
or other final destination within a single swine production system 
would no longer be required to undergo veterinary inspections at 
intervals of 30 days or less. In order to ensure that finishing house 
animals would still undergo regular health monitoring, swine that have 
completed their interstate movement within the swine production system, 
as well as the premises on which they are housed, would have to be 
inspected in accordance with State regulations. This proposed rule 
would reduce the frequency of veterinary inspections for swine that 
have completed their interstate movement within a single swine 
production system without diminishing the effectiveness of our swine-
disease monitoring and surveillance activities.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 
22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery 
or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send 
four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket 
No. 02-069-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 
3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state 
that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-069-1. If you use e-mail, 
address your comment to [email protected]. Your comment must 
be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. 
Please include your name and address in your message and ``Docket No. 
02-069-1'' on the subject line.
    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. Adam Grow, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 
4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7708.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in subchapter C of chapter I, title 9, Code of 
Federal Regulations, govern the interstate movement of animals and 
animal products to prevent the dissemination of livestock and poultry 
diseases in the United States. Part 71 of subchapter C includes, among 
other things, requirements for the identification and inspection of 
swine being moved interstate.
    On December 20, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 
65598-65604, Docket No. 98-023-2) a final rule that established an 
alternative to the requirements for moving swine interstate. Among 
other things, the rule allowed persons to move swine interstate without 
meeting individual swine identification requirements if the swine were 
being moved within a single swine production system, and provided that 
the swine production system agreed to monitor the health of animals 
moving within the system and to facilitate tracebacks. The rule was 
designed to further facilitate the interstate movement of swine while 
continuing to provide protection against the interstate spread of swine 
diseases.
    Among other things, the final rule amended Sec.  71.1 by adding a 
definition of swine production health plan. This definition featured a 
provision requiring that such plans ``must identify all premises that 
are part of the swine production system and that receive or send swine 
in interstate commerce and must provide for regular inspections of all 
identified premises and swine on the premises, at intervals no greater 
than 30 days, by the swine production system accredited 
veterinarians(s).'' By providing for regular inspections of ``all 
identified premises and swine on the premises,'' this provision has the 
effect of requiring such inspections even after the swine have 
completed their interstate movement within the swine production system 
and have arrived at a finishing house or other final receiving premises 
within the swine production system.
    Some commenters on the proposal that preceded the final rule 
suggested that while veterinary inspections at intervals of 30 days or 
less are appropriate and necessary for swine that are still to be moved 
interstate, such regular inspections are not necessary once the animals 
have completed their interstate movement within the swine production 
system. Furthermore, it was suggested that retaining the 30-day 
veterinary inspection requirement for animals that had reached their 
final destination in the system could unintentionally increase the risk 
of swine disease transmission by requiring veterinarians who may have 
first inspected sick animals to inspect healthy ones as well, even in 
the absence of a compelling medical need to do so.
    When we promulgated the final rule, we decided to retain the 30-day 
inspection provision. We were concerned that reducing the frequency 
could put accredited veterinarians in violation of our accreditation 
standards in 9 CFR 161.3(a). Under these standards, accredited 
veterinarians must complete certificates of inspection based on 
veterinary inspection. An accredited veterinarian may not issue any 
certificate or other document ``which reflects the results of any 
inspection, test, [etc.]'' unless he or she has personally inspected 
the animal not more than 10 days prior to issuing the certificate or 
other document. However, following the initial and subsequent 
inspections of a herd or flock that is in a regular health maintenance 
program, an accredited veterinarian may issue any certificate or other 
document if not more than 30 days have passed since he or she 
personally inspected the animal.
    We have since concluded, however, that having a more flexible 
inspection requirement for swine that have reached their final 
destination in the swine production system would not conflict with our 
accreditation standards. A certification of inspection is necessary for 
the interstate movement of swine within a swine production system.

[[Page 28168]]

Swine that have reached a finishing house or other final destination in 
the system will be destined for the slaughterhouse. Nothing in the 
current proposal would preclude any inspection needed to issue a 
certification for the interstate movement of swine to slaughter. The 
proposal would merely eliminate routine 30-day inspections for animals 
that have arrived at a finishing house or other final destination and 
that may well spend months at that one location. It does not relieve 
accredited veterinarians of the responsibility of complying with the 
accreditation standards or other applicable requirements.
    Therefore, we are proposing to amend our definition of swine 
production health plan in Sec.  71.1 to allow for greater flexibility 
in health inspections of swine that have completed their movement 
within a swine production system. Under our proposed definition, the 
swine production health plan would have to provide for health 
monitoring, including inspection by the swine production system 
accredited veterinarian(s), of all swine within the system. The 
required frequency of inspections would vary according to the nature of 
the premises and the swine that populate them. Inspections of premises 
that contain swine that are or will be in the process of moving 
interstate within the swine production system and of all swine on those 
premises would still have to be conducted by the accredited 
veterinarian(s) at intervals of no greater than 30 days. Inspections of 
premises containing only swine that have completed their interstate 
movement within a single swine production system and of all swine on 
those premises would have to be conducted in accordance with State 
regulations.
    This action would reduce the frequency of veterinary inspections 
for swine that have completed their interstate movement within a single 
swine production system without diminishing the effectiveness of our 
swine-disease monitoring and surveillance activities.

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 remove a requirement in Sec.  71.1 for 
veterinary inspections, at intervals no greater than 30 days, of swine 
that have already completed their interstate movement within a swine 
production system.
    The entities affected by this proposed action would be swine owners 
and swine finishing houses or other final receiving destinations in 
swine production systems. Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture 
suggest that approximately 109,754 swine farms could be affected, and 
that 98 percent of these swine farms could be classified as small 
entities under the Small Business Administration criterion of $750,000 
or less in revenue per year.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1997 Census of Agriculture, Hogs and Pigs Inventory (http://www.nass.usda.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall economic impact of this proposed rule should be 
positive but small. Swine operations would be able to forgo certain 
costs of inspections at the finishing houses or other final receiving 
premises in the swine production system. The annual savings that would 
be realized by each swine operation are difficult to estimate because 
many of the veterinarians who perform the inspections are held under a 
retainer and perform other services for the swine operation. However, 
the time and resources of the veterinarian could be redirected to other 
issues at the finishing houses or other receiving premises, like caring 
for sick animals, thereby benefitting swine owners.
    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.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR 71

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

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    2. In Sec.  71.1, in the definition of swine production health 
plan, the second sentence would be removed and four new sentences would 
be added in its place to read as follows:


Sec.  71.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Swine production health plan. * * * The plan must identify all 
premises that are part of the swine production system and that receive 
or send swine in interstate commerce and must provide for health 
monitoring of all swine within the system. Such health monitoring must 
include inspections by the swine production system accredited 
veterinarian(s). Inspections of all identified premises that contain 
swine that are or will be in the process of moving interstate within 
the swine production system and of all swine on those premises must be 
conducted by the accredited veterinarian(s) at intervals of no greater 
than 30 days. Inspections of all identified receiving premises that 
contain only swine that have completed their interstate movement within 
a single swine production system and of all swine on those premises 
must be conducted in accordance with State regulations. * * *
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of May 2003.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 03-12994 Filed 5-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P