[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39301-39307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13932]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 39301]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80

[Docket No. 04-052-2]
RIN 0579-AC48


Livestock Identification; Use of Alternative Numbering Systems

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with several changes, an 
interim rule that, among other things, amended the regulations to allow 
for the use of additional numbering systems for purposes of animal and 
premises identification. As amended by this document, the rule 
recognizes additional numbering systems for the identification of 
animals in interstate commerce and State/Tribe/Federal/industry 
cooperative disease control and eradication programs. Additionally, the 
rule amends the regulations to authorize the use of a numbering system 
to identify premises where animals are managed or held. These 
regulatory changes are necessary to allow the use, for official 
purposes, of the new numbering systems in the National Animal 
Identification System. Use of the new numbering systems is not required 
by this final rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, NAIS 
Coordinator, Surveillance and Identification Programs, National Center 
for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register 
on November 8, 2004 (69 FR 64644-64651, Docket No. 04-052-1), we 
amended the regulations to recognize additional numbering systems for 
the identification of animals in interstate commerce and State/Federal/
industry cooperative disease control and eradication programs. 
Additionally, the interim rule amended the regulations to authorize the 
use of a numbering system to identify premises where animals are 
managed or held. Specifically, the interim rule recognized the animal 
identification number (AIN) for the identification of individual 
animals, the group/lot identification number (GIN) for the 
identification of groups or lots of animals, and the premises 
identification number (PIN) for the identification of premises. These 
new numbering systems are key elements in the National Animal 
Identification System (NAIS). The changes we made to the regulations in 
the interim rule were necessary to allow the use of these new numbering 
systems for official purposes in disease control and eradication 
programs. The interim rule did not require use of the new numbering 
systems, however. Finally, the interim rule amended the regulations to 
prohibit the removal of official identification devices and to 
eliminate potential regulatory obstacles to the recognition of emerging 
technologies that could offer viable alternatives to existing animal 
identification devices and methods.
    Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or 
before January 7, 2005. We received 16 comments by that date. They were 
from beef, cattle, sheep, goat, and poultry producers; producers 
associations; and State governments. The comments are discussed below.
    There were several comments pertaining to our definition of the 
AIN. Issues discussed included the need for a nationally unique AIN, 
the recognition of different types of AINs, a possible alternative to 
the AIN, and the need for having a sunset date for other types of 
identification numbers so that the AIN will be in effect nationally.
    One commenter stated that the definition of the AIN contained in 
our November 2004 interim rule does not require that the number be 
``nationally unique'' or indicate that there is a need to avoid 
duplication with existing numbers. It would be useful, according to 
this commenter, to include this requirement in the definition of AIN so 
that the rule is clear and specific throughout.
    We agree with this comment and are changing the definition 
accordingly. Since the NAIS is a national system, it is important that 
each AIN be nationally unique and that duplication be avoided. This 
final rule amends the definition of animal identification number (AIN) 
to read as follows: ``A numbering system for the official 
identification of individual animals in the United States providing a 
nationally unique identification number for each animal. The AIN 
contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840 for 
the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric code 
assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the 
International Committee on Animal Recording.''
    The same commenter, noting that the interim rule recognized three 
types of AINs (those beginning with an ``840'' country code, with the 
alpha characters ``USA'', and with a numeric code assigned to the 
manufacturer of the device), stated that it was appropriate to identify 
the three types of numbers as ``official numbering systems'' and that 
the latter two forms should be referred to using alternative 
terminology, e.g., ``American ID'' for the ``USA'' number, in order to 
prevent confusion. The commenter expressed the concern that only the 
``840'' number will be recognized in the NAIS.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this 
comment. Because a uniform animal identification numbering system is 
needed to make the NAIS successful, we do intend that, in the future, 
only the ``840'' AIN will be recognized for official use, to the extent 
practical. The interim rule recognized the ``USA'' and manufacturer's 
code numbers in order to avoid placing an excessive burden on producers 
who were already using those numbering systems for identifying their 
animals. We view these numbering systems as transitional, however, and 
anticipate phasing them out as we progress toward full implementation 
of the NAIS. Additional information about this phasing-out process and 
timelines for the transition to APHIS' recognition of only the ``840'' 
AIN for official use

[[Page 39302]]

will be provided in future rulemaking or other documents.
    Another commenter recommended that we adopt a ``universal animal 
identification number (UAIN)'' in place of our AIN. While the UAIN 
could have the same format as the AIN, the former would be a permanent 
and unique database number for a single animal and would be linked with 
all physical device identifiers associated with the animal, including 
radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs), visual tags, retinal 
scans, DNA, brands, and unlimited alternate identifiers. The commenter 
stated that the UAIN could be used at the producer's option as the RFID 
number, or another ISO-compliant number could be used as an 
alternative. According to the commenter, the UAIN alternative would 
make it possible for both currently accepted and new identification 
technologies to be easily adopted without having to reengineer the 
official database over time. The UAIN would also allow easy retagging 
or reidentification, as retagging would link a new physical identifier 
to the original UAIN. There would be only one UAIN linked with one 
animal.
    We are not making any changes in response to this comment. In the 
NAIS, the AIN will provide the same capabilities as would the 
commenter's recommended UAIN. The initial AIN assigned to an animal 
will be its lifetime number. Additionally, there is merit in having the 
animal's AIN attached to the animal for visual collection and 
subsequent recording for routine animal health tests, as well as health 
certificates. When a tag is lost and it is necessary to assign a new 
AIN to an animal, the pertinent NAIS databases will cross-reference the 
replacement AIN with the animal's original AIN. It is acknowledged that 
in some cases, the animal's original AIN may not be known, and thus 
cross-referencing of the two AINs will not be possible.
    Another commenter suggested that, as soon as possible, a reasonable 
sunset date for identification numbers other than the ``840'' AIN 
should be established and communicated to industry. The commenter 
stated that the goal of the AIN implementation period should be to 
minimize labor for producers whose livestock are already identified and 
to increase the number of animals that can be easily recorded in the 
system, while at the same time transitioning all livestock to be 
identified using one uniform, standardized, and technology-neutral 
numbering system for the NAIS.
    While we are not making any changes to the final rule as the result 
of this comment, which is beyond the scope of the present rulemaking, 
we do agree with the commenter. As noted above, we view the ``USA'' and 
manufacturer's code AINs as transitional and intend to phase them out 
as we progress toward full implementation of the NAIS, leaving the 
``840'' AIN as the only one recognized for official use, to the extent 
practical. A date will be set for the sunset of the ``USA'' and 
manufacturer's code numbers, and advance notice will be provided to 
ensure a smooth transition to the ``840'' number for official use in 
disease control and eradication programs.
    A commenter suggested that the definition of group/lot 
identification number (GIN) should be amended in the final rule to 
state that each animal reported in a group movement be required to have 
an individual animal group identification tag and that the number of 
head being moved in each group should be reported to the official 
database. In the absence of these requirements, according to the 
commenter, one has no way to prove that the animals were part of the 
group being moved once they are intentionally or accidentally 
commingled at a premises.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this 
comment. Requiring an identification tag for each individual animal in 
a group would defeat the purpose and utility of group/lot 
identification. The intent behind the GIN is that the group of animals 
is referenced by a unique number so that each individual animal does 
not need to be tagged.
    We did determine, however, that we needed to change the format of 
the GIN slightly. The November 2004 interim rule defined the GIN as 
consisting of a seven-character PIN and a six-digit representation of 
the date on which the group or lot of animals was assembled. That 
format made no provision for situations where more than one group of 
animals may be moved from a premises on the same day. Several of the 
species working groups that are working with APHIS on the NAIS--the 
sheep industry in particular--believed that the format needed to be 
revised in order to allow for the assignment of multiple GINs to 
multiple groups of animals moving from a premises on a single day. 
Therefore, the GIN has been revised by adding two digits. These two 
additional digits will provide for the identification of up to 99 
groups/lots of animals moving from a premises on the same day. In this 
final rule, we are amending the definition of the GIN to reflect this 
change in format.
    Other commenters discussed issues pertaining to the PIN. Concerns 
expressed by these commenters included the need for a nationally unique 
PIN, potential ambiguity about who will assign PINs, and the PIN 
format.
    The same commenter who stated that we needed to specify that the 
AIN would be a ``nationally unique'' number offered a similar comment 
about the PIN. Noting that the definition contained in the November 
2004 interim rule states that the PIN is a ``unique number,'' the 
commenter argued that the final rule should state that the PIN is a 
``nationally unique number.''
    We agree with this comment as well. As with the AIN, it is 
important to avoid duplication with the PIN. We are amending the 
definition of premises identification number (PIN) in this final rule 
to indicate that it is a nationally unique number.
    We are also making some additional modifications to the definition 
of premises identification number (PIN) in this final rule for the sake 
of comprehensiveness, clarity, and flexibility. While the definition in 
the interim rule refers to PINs being assigned by State or Federal 
animal health authorities, the definition in this final rule provides 
for Tribal authorities to do so as well. Secondly, whereas the PIN is 
currently defined, in part, as a nationally unique number representing 
a geographically distinct location from other livestock production 
units, the definition in this final rule refers to a geographically 
distinct location from other premises. This change, complemented by a 
new definition of premises as a location where livestock or poultry are 
held or kept that we are adding to Sec.  71.1, makes the definition of 
the PIN more inclusive than the one in the interim rule. Finally, the 
definition of the PIN in the interim rule also stated, among other 
things, that the number is associated with an address or legal land 
description. In this final rule, the definition indicates that the PIN 
is associated with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other 
location descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The 
new definition provides greater flexibility by allowing for additional 
means of determining specific locations that will be associated with 
PINs.
    The same commenter also expressed concern about the potential for 
confusion regarding who assigns PINs to premises. The commenter noted 
that the interim rule indicated that the PIN can be assigned by a State 
or Federal animal health official and that the assignment of the number 
is based on the judgment of either the State or Federal animal health 
official that the premises is a geographically distinct location from

[[Page 39303]]

other livestock production units. According to the commenter, this 
provision appears to open up possibilities for jurisdictional conflict 
and could result in producers receiving conflicting information. The 
commenter argued that the PINs should be assigned to premises by the 
authorized animal health official, who, in most cases, would be the 
designated State animal health official.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule as a result of this 
comment. While it is a State or Tribe's responsibility to maintain the 
system to register premises within its geographic area and to be the 
direct contact for producers registering their premises, the NAIS, as a 
State-Tribal-Federal cooperative program, necessitates cooperative 
efforts for the interpretation of premises definitions to ensure 
consistent interpretation nationwide. The definition of premises 
identification number (PIN) contained in the interim rule reflected the 
cooperative nature of this enterprise, a point we are further 
reinforcing by adding the reference to Tribal authorities to the 
definition in the final rule.
    Another commenter expressed some concerns about the format of the 
PIN, as defined in our November 2004 interim rule. The interim rule 
recognized a new PIN format for official use: A seven-character 
alphanumeric code, with the right-most character being a check digit. 
This commenter suggested that adding an alphanumeric checksum character 
to a six-character code could increase the number of transcription 
errors because a seventh character could exceed the normal range of 
short-term memory. The commenter's preferred solution would have the 
numbers of digits in PINs vary according to the primary function of a 
particular premises. Commercial poultry producers' premises would have 
five-digit PINs assigned to them. There would be six-digit PINs 
assigned to swine producers, seven-digit PINs to beef producers, eight-
digit PINs to dairy producers, and nine-digit PINs to other producers. 
Such a system, according to the commenter, would reserve the shorter 
PINs for those sections of agriculture that will be the primary users 
of the numbering system, support the implementation of species-specific 
identification tags, make tattoos easier to read, decrease 
transcription errors, and allow for the recording of numbers into 
electronic ID systems.
    We do not support this recommendation. The PIN is intended to 
identify a geographical location where livestock or poultry are managed 
or held rather than the species present at the premises. The 
agricultural activity at a given premises may change over time due to 
changes in ownership or other factors. The PIN, as defined in the 
rulemaking, allows for that possibility. Under the commenter's 
proposal, on the other hand, a change in the primary species produced 
at a premises would necessarily result in that premises having to be 
assigned a new PIN.
    One commenter asserted that while the definition of official eartag 
contained in the interim rule indicated that the official eartag must 
``provide unique identification for individual animals,'' it did not 
specify how this was to be done.
    We do not agree with this comment. The definition of official 
eartag in the interim rule specified numbering systems that may be used 
on the eartags for the identification of individual animals in the 
NAIS.
    The same commenter also argued that while the official eartag 
requirements seem appropriate for the future, they may not be entirely 
so at present. The definition of official eartag provided in the 
interim rule stated that an official eartag must bear the U.S. shield. 
As the commenter pointed out, many animals currently carry tags that 
meet all the interim rule's requirements for an official eartag with 
the exception of having the U.S. shield printed on the tag. In 
addition, many such tags have been manufactured and are ready to be 
used in cooperative agreements to begin the implementation of the NAIS. 
By requiring animals carrying these tags, with verifiably unique 
numbers, to be retagged in order for their eartags to be recognized as 
official, APHIS would place a significant burden on producers and delay 
implementation of the program, according to the commenter. The 
implementation of the NAIS would be facilitated and industry would 
benefit if the requirement for printing the U.S. shield on official 
eartags were set at some future specific date and if tags currently in 
use that meet all other criteria continue to be recognized as official 
eartags until that date.
    We recognize that we would be placing a significant burden on 
producers if we required them to retag their animals in order that the 
eartags used meet the U.S. shield requirement. Therefore, we are going 
to allow producers employing the transitional ``USA'' and 
manufacturer's code numbers, as well as PIN-based numbers, to continue 
to use eartags that meet all the other specifications but do not have 
the U.S. shield imprinted upon them. In this final rule, we have 
amended the definition of official eartag to require the U.S. shield 
only for eartags using ``840'' AINs.
    Another commenter stressed the importance of having official 
identification devices be ``tamper evident'' and having provisions in 
the regulations stating that the removal of such devices prior to 
slaughter would be subject to penalties. The commenter also stated that 
minimum retention rates for such devices should be established in 
partnership with the livestock industry, and manufacturer compliance 
with those rates should be required for participation in the NAIS.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to 
these comments. The definition of official eartag in the November 2004 
interim rule states that an official eartag ``must be tamper resistant 
and have a high rate of retention in the animal.'' The commenter did 
not indicate how ``tamper evident'' differs from ``tamper resistant.'' 
The species working groups recommend specific technologies and 
performance requirements, including minimum retention rates, for those 
technologies. Based on those recommendations, APHIS has developed an 
evaluation process for device manufacturers seeking to have their 
devices approved for use in the NAIS. This process includes the 
evaluation of minimum retention rates for the identification devices 
used in the NAIS. The interim rule did add prohibitions on removing 
identification devices prior to slaughter to parts 71 and 93, though 
penalties were not specified. Generally, our regulations do not include 
descriptions of the penalties provided for by the Animal Health 
Protection Act and other statutes.
    Another commenter cautioned against relying completely on official 
tags as the sole or primary physical identifier of animals in the NAIS. 
Physical identifiers, the commenter noted, are not necessarily 
permanent. Tags of all types are lost, damaged, malfunction, or become 
unreadable. The commenter recommended that, in place of existing tag 
requirements, we adopt for use in the NAIS a Device Animal 
Identification Number--Radio Frequency Identification (DAIN-RF) tag. 
The DAIN-RF tag would be required to be attached to each animal or 
subdermally implanted in each animal, as determined by each species 
group, and would have to meet ISO standards so that each identification 
number would be unique. The DAIN-RF tag would be unofficial and would 
not bear the U.S. shield. The tag would be required to display the 
encoded ISO number on the outside. The use of these tags in the NAIS 
would not require manufacturers to change their normal manufacturing 
processes or to establish a unique color

[[Page 39304]]

for official identification. The commenter also argued that DAIN-RF 
tags used for beef production should not be limited to a one-time use, 
since reusable tags have been employed to identify animals in the beef 
industry for over 10 years. The use of reusable tags reduces the costs 
of animal identification.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this 
comment. The commenter is certainly correct in saying that tags get 
lost; however, while some tag loss is expected, the requirement 
contained in the interim rule's definition of official eartag that such 
tags have high retention rates will provide adequate protection. 
Additional methods to validate identification when tags are lost will 
be considered as technology becomes practical and affordable, but to 
require identification that is absolutely permanent for all animals is 
not practical today. One-time use of official identification devices 
has been an important factor in maintaining the integrity of animal 
identification for many years, and we feel strongly this practice 
should continue. Additionally, the species working groups support the 
use of official tags.
    The same commenter also recommended that we add a definition of AIN 
manager to the final rule. The commenter stated that AIN manager should 
be defined as a representative of a company that receives allocations 
from the USDA of UAINs (as defined by this commenter and referred to 
earlier in this document) to be used as permanent database 
identification for the animal. AIN managers would be data service 
providers, data trustees, or others who participate in linking an ISO 
RFID device on the animal and subsequent alternate identification 
devices to the UAIN in a database.
    We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this 
comment. The comment goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking, the 
primary intent of which is to allow for the use of new numbering 
systems for the identification of animals and premises for official 
purposes in disease control and eradication programs. In the NAIS User 
Guide, a document that was made available to the public in November 
2006 and that represents the most up-to-date information about the 
program, we defined an AIN device manager, in part, as an ``entity that 
represents an AIN device manufacturer for the distribution of AIN 
devices.'' Additional description of the roles and responsibilities of 
the AIN device manager is provided in that definition and elsewhere in 
the NAIS User Guide. We will follow the recommendations of the NAIS 
Draft Program Standards, which were updated and released in February 
2007 as the ``Program Standards and Technical Reference'' document, for 
the allocation of AINs to AIN device manufacturers and the distribution 
of AIN devices through AIN device managers and resellers.
    The same commenter also recommended that we adopt a new definition 
of officially identified. Based on this commenter's recommendation, 
which was discussed earlier in this document, that we adopt the UAIN as 
the official means of identification for individual animals in the 
NAIS, the suggested new definition of officially identified would read 
as follows: ``An animal that is uniquely and officially identified with 
a tamper-proof database identifier allocated to data service providers 
or data trustees by USDA and known as a UAIN. An officially identified 
animal is one that has been reported to the official database for 
purposes of NAIS tracing. The UAIN will be linked to the physical 
identifiers associated with an animal.''
    We are not making any changes to the final rule as a result of this 
comment. As noted earlier, the AIN will serve as an animal's lifetime 
identification number and will provide the same capabilities as the 
UAIN that the commenter recommends. Having the AIN printed on an 
animal's official tag will aid in the administration of animal health 
programs.
    The same commenter also suggested that we needed to add certain 
definitions to the regulations in order to avoid ambiguity. While the 
regulations provide specific definitions of commingling for swine and 
sheep, no such definition is provided for cattle. The commenter 
recommended that the regulations should state that, for cattle, 
commingling means that an animal was not prohibited from coming in 
contact with another animal. The commenter also stated that the 
definition for a unit of animals varies among species, resulting in 
potential ambiguity in the establishment of group identification, and 
that production systems can be interpreted to have variable meanings 
within and across species.
    We will take these suggestions into consideration, though they 
appear to go beyond the scope of the present rulemaking, which is 
primarily concerned with allowing for the use of alternative numbering 
systems for identifying animals and premises. The GIN standards 
contained in this rule pertain to the numbering system. In the NAIS 
User Guide, published on the NAIS Web site on November 22, 2006, we 
defined the term commingle as referring ``to events where animals are 
mixed or brought together with animals from other farms, ranches, or 
other production systems.'' This definition was applicable to all 
species.
    A number of commenters stated that the voluntary Scrapie Flock 
Certification Program, which has worked effectively for small 
producers, should be continued in its current form rather than being 
replaced by a new identification system. (Numbering systems that are 
accepted for official use in this program are described in 9 CFR 79.2, 
which also contains a list of approved means of identification.) One of 
these commenters stressed the importance of producers with small goat 
herds being allowed to continue to use microchip implants as a means of 
animal identification. Implants, according to this commenter, are more 
reliable than eartags or tattoos, which are less likely to be permanent 
and are more vulnerable to tampering.
    We agree with these comments, but note that they do not necessitate 
any changes to the final rule. Producers with small goat herds will 
still be able to use microchip implants, since the definition of 
official identification device or method contained in the interim rule 
is sufficiently flexible to allow for the use of such devices.
    One commenter suggested that when the NAIS is fully implemented, 
health certificates for cattle should be eliminated. The commenter 
stated that the health certificates would be a duplication of the 
tracking function of the NAIS and would no longer be necessary. This 
comment does not appear to be relevant to the current rulemaking.
    Finally, in addition to the changes discussed above, we are adding 
a definition of animal identification number (AIN) to Sec.  79.1 and 
revising the existing definition of official eartag in that section so 
that it matches the one described earlier in this document. These 
changes will ensure that the definitions in part 79 are consistent with 
the definitions found elsewhere in our regulations pertaining to the 
interstate movement of animals.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.
    This final rule also affirms the information contained in the 
interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

[[Page 39305]]

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 71

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

9 CFR Part 77

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Tuberculosis.

9 CFR Part 78

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 79

    Animal diseases, Quarantine, Sheep, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 80

    Animal diseases, Livestock, Transportation.

0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80 as 
follows:

PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 71.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal 
identification number (AIN), group/lot identification number (GIN), 
official eartag, and premises identification number (PIN) and by adding 
a definition of premises to read as follows:


Sec.  71.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the 
official identification of individual animals in the United States 
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal. 
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code 
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric 
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the 
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
    Group/lot identification number (GIN). The identification number 
used to uniquely identify a ``unit of animals'' of the same species 
that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest 
production chain. The GIN consists of a seven-character premises 
identification number (PIN), as defined in this section, a six-digit 
representation of the date on which the group or lot of animals was 
assembled (MM/DD/YY), and two additional digits, ranging from 01 to 99, 
for the numbering of different groups or lots of animals assembled on 
the same premises on the same day. When more than one group of animals 
is assembled, the groups will be designated consecutively as 01, 02, 
03, etc.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique 
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which 
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S. 
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of 
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to 
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official 
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
    (1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
    (2) Animal identification number (AIN).
    (3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system 
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined 
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering 
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the 
production number must both appear on the official tag.
    (4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for 
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
    Premises. A location where livestock or poultry are housed or kept.
    Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number 
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to 
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or 
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location 
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated 
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or location descriptors 
which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises identification 
number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own livestock 
production numbering system to provide a unique identification number 
for an animal. It may also be used as a component of a group/lot 
identification number (GIN). The premises identification number may 
consist of:
    (1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the 
premises' assigned number; or
    (2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most 
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the 
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *

PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS

0
3. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. Section 77.2 is amended by revising the definitions of animal 
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and premises 
identification number (PIN) to read as follows:


Sec.  77.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the 
official identification of individual animals in the United States 
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal. 
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code 
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric 
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the 
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique 
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which 
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S. 
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of 
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to 
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official 
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
    (1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
    (2) Animal identification number (AIN).
    (3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system 
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined 
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering 
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the 
production number must both appear on the official tag.
    (4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for 
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *

[[Page 39306]]

    Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number 
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to 
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or 
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location 
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated 
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other location 
descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises 
identification number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own 
livestock production numbering system to provide a unique 
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number 
may consist of:
    (1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the 
premises' assigned number; or
    (2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most 
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the 
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

0
5. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows:


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


0
6. Section 78.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal 
identification number (AIN) and official eartag to read as follows:


Sec.  78.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the 
official identification of individual animals in the United States 
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal. 
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code 
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric 
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the 
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique 
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which 
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S. 
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of 
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to 
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official 
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
    (a) National Uniform Eartagging System.
    (b) Animal identification number (AIN).
    (c) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system 
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined 
in Sec.  71.1 of this chapter, with a producer's livestock production 
numbering system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and 
the production number must both appear on the official tag.
    (d) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for 
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *

PART 79--SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND GOATS

0
7. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:

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


0
8. Section 79.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the definition of premises identification, by removing the words 
``number, as'' and adding the words ``number (PIN), as'' in their 
place.
0
b. By revising the definitions of official eartag and premises 
identification number (PIN) and adding a definition of animal 
identification number (AIN) to read as set forth below.


Sec.  79.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the 
official identification of individual animals in the United States 
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal. 
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code 
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric 
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the 
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique 
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which 
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S. 
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of 
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to 
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official 
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
    (1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
    (2) Animal identification number (AIN).
    (3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system 
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined 
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering 
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the 
production number must both appear on the official tag.
    (4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for 
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
    Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number 
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to 
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or 
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location 
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated 
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other location 
descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises 
identification number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own 
livestock production numbering system to provide a unique 
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number 
may consist of:
    (1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the 
premises' assigned number; or
    (2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most 
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the 
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *

PART 80--JOHNE'S DISEASE IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS

0
9. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

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


0
10. Section 80.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal 
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and premises 
identification number (PIN) to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the 
official identification of individual animals in the United States 
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal. 
The AIN contains 15 digits,

[[Page 39307]]

with the first 3 being the country code (840 for the United States), 
the alpha characters USA, or the numeric code assigned to the 
manufacturer of the identification device by the International 
Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique 
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which 
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S. 
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of 
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to 
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official 
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
    (1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
    (2) Animal identification number (AIN).
    (3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system 
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined 
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering 
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the 
production number must both appear on the official tag.
    (4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for 
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
    Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number 
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to 
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or 
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location 
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated 
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other location 
descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises 
identification number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own 
livestock production numbering system to provide a unique 
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number 
may consist of:
    (1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the 
premises' assigned number; or
    (2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most 
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the 
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-13932 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P