[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 140 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40064-40066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14177]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0147]
RIN 0579Z-AC26


Cattle for Export; Removal of Certain Testing Requirements

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the livestock exportation regulations to 
eliminate the requirement for pre-export tuberculosis and brucellosis 
testing of certain cattle being exported to countries that do not 
require such testing. This action will facilitate the exportation of 
certain cattle by eliminating the need to conduct pre-export 
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing when the receiving country does 
not require such testing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Antonio Ramirez, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and 
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; 
(301) 734-8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, ``Inspection and Handling of 
Livestock for Exportation'' (referred to below as the regulations), 
prescribe conditions for exporting animals from the United States. 
Section 91.5 requires, among other things, that cattle intended for 
exportation be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to export.
    On January 10, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
1192-1195, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0147) a proposal \1\ to amend the 
regulations by eliminating the requirement for pre-export tuberculosis 
and brucellosis testing of certain cattle being exported to countries 
that do not require such testing. Under its Restricted Feeder Cattle 
Program, Canada allows the importation of certain U.S. cattle without 
testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis, but our regulations required 
that these cattle be tested for these diseases. Thus, the proposal was 
intended both to relieve restrictions on U.S. cattle that are exported 
to Canada under this program and to ensure that, if other countries 
receiving exports of U.S. cattle suspend or remove their requirements 
that U.S. cattle be tested for tuberculosis or brucellosis, U.S. 
exporters of cattle would receive the full benefits of no longer being 
required to perform such tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go 
to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
March 12, 2007. We received 8 comments by that date. They were from 
producers, exporters, and other private citizens. Two of the comments 
were entirely supportive. The remaining comments are discussed below.
    One commenter stated that it is the United States' responsibility 
to protect the health and welfare of the people of foreign nations and 
that testing cattle exported from the United States would help to 
accomplish this goal.
    We proposed to remove the testing requirement for exported cattle 
only when testing is not required by the receiving country. Thus, a 
country receiving U.S. cattle would have to determine that waiving any 
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing requirements for U.S. cattle would 
not be detrimental to its citizens' health and welfare before we would 
allow any cattle to be exported to that country without testing.
    One commenter opposed the proposal on the grounds that the existing 
exemptions to the testing requirements in the regulations are adequate.
    As we discussed in the proposed rule, we do not believe that the 
current exemptions are adequate. For example, cattle exported to Canada 
under the Restricted Feeder Cattle Program are still required under our 
regulations to be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis, even though 
Canada does not require such testing. Paragraph (b) of Sec.  91.3 
states that the Administrator may, upon request of the appropriate 
animal health official of the country of destination, waive the 
tuberculosis and brucellosis tests referred to in Sec. Sec.  91.5(a) 
and (b) of the regulations when he finds such tests are not necessary 
to prevent the exportation of diseased animals from the United States. 
However, this provision does not allow us to relieve the testing 
requirement for cattle exported under the Restricted Feeder Cattle 
Program, as Canadian animal health officials would have to request each 
time cattle are exported that the brucellosis and tuberculosis tests 
not be administered. A more general exemption from the testing 
requirement is necessary to cover all situations in which U.S. cattle 
may be exported to countries that do not require them to be tested for 
tuberculosis or brucellosis.
    One commenter stated that the testing of cattle at export for 
tuberculosis and brucellosis is done only to increase agricultural 
profits. This commenter also stated that no cattle should be exported.
    APHIS tests cattle upon export to help prevent the spread of 
disease and to facilitate exports in accordance with our 
responsibilities under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.). We have no statutory authority to regulate the movement of 
livestock except as it relates to preventing the introduction or spread 
of animal diseases.
    One commenter asked that we relieve testing restrictions for cattle 
exported to Mexico as well.
    The testing requirement will be relived for exports of cattle to 
any country that does not require testing of cattle for tuberculosis 
and brucellosis when they are exported from the United States. 
Negotiations with other countries to establish export agreements under 
which testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis is not required will be 
conducted separately. Once we have

[[Page 40065]]

established such an agreement with a country, however, any cattle 
exported from the United States in compliance with such an agreement 
could be exported without testing for one or both of these diseases, 
depending on the terms of the agreement.
    Two commenters asked that we relieve the testing requirements for 
additional types of exported animals when testing is not required by 
the receiving country. One commenter requested that we apply the 
exemption to goats and swine, noting that these animals typically have 
lower per-head values than cattle, which would mean that the positive 
economic impact associated with exempting those animals from testing 
would be even greater for producers and exporters of those animals. 
Another commenter asked that testing requirements be relieved for sheep 
as well.
    We agree that it would be desirable to relieve the testing 
restrictions for additional types of animals, where possible. However, 
removing the testing requirements for other species involves different 
risks that would need to be considered separately. We will continue to 
look for opportunities to further relieve testing requirements and, if 
removing testing requirements for other animals is warranted, we will 
issue a separate proposal to do so.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without 
change.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This 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 final rule removes the requirement that cattle destined for 
export must be tested for brucellosis and tuberculosis prior to export 
in any case in which such testing is not required by the receiving 
country for cattle originating in the United States or any State 
therein.
    The rule will affect domestic producers of cattle, specifically 
those engaged in the export of animals. In 2005, there were 982,510 
cattle operations in the United States.\2\ On January 1, 2005, domestic 
inventory of cattle and calves totaled over 95.8 million, with an 
average per head value of $916, and a total value of production of over 
$87.8 billion.\3\ Under U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) size 
standards, operations engaged in cattle ranching or production (both 
beef and dairy) are considered small if they earn $750,000 or less in 
annual receipts.\4\ According to the USDA's National Agricultural 
Statistics Service, approximately 953,390, or 97 percent, of the 
982,510 cattle operations in the United States are holding fewer than 
500 head of cattle. As such, we would assume that the overwhelming 
majority of domestic cattle operations would be considered small by SBA 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ USDA-NASS, Quick Stats U.S. & All States Data. Washington, 
DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2006.
    \3\ USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics 2005.
    \4\ Table of Size Standards based on North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) 2002. Beef Cattle Ranching and 
Farming: NAICS code 112111, Dairy Cattle and Milk Production: NAICS 
code 112120. Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration, 
effective January 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only those operations engaged in the export of their animals will 
be affected by this rule. In 2005, the United States exported 21,155 
live cattle, with a total value of over $7.2 million. Our primary 
trading partners historically are Canada and Mexico, and in 2005 Canada 
and Mexico ranked first and second, respectively, as destinations of 
U.S. live cattle exports by value.\5\ In response to strong domestic 
cattle price and trade barriers related to bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy and other diseases, U.S. cattle exports declined 
significantly in 2003-2004, but they are now on the rebound. The number 
of operations engaged in the export of cattle is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ USDA-FAS, U.S. Trade Exports-FATUS Commodity Aggregations. 
Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service. Based on data from the 
Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rule, domestic cattle producers wishing to export their 
animals will no longer be required to test for tuberculosis and 
brucellosis prior to export when the importing countries do not require 
such testing. As such, the rule represents a reduction in compliance 
costs currently associated with export requirements for live cattle. 
APHIS estimates the average cost of tuberculosis testing for cattle 
ranges from $10 to $12 per head. In addition, APHIS estimates the cost 
of an official herd blood test for brucellosis to be $3 per animal. If 
a producer located in a State that is accredited-free for tuberculosis 
and Class Free for brucellosis exports cattle to a country where pre-
export testing requirements have been removed, the cost savings that 
the producer will capture as a result of the change to the regulations 
will depend on the number of animals exported. Again, the exact number 
of domestic producers whose operations depend on the export of cattle 
is unknown. However, given the average per-head value of $916, the cost 
saved by not having to test for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to 
export is not expected to be economically significant, as the combined 
cost of the tests represents a small percentage of the per-head value 
of the cattle.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
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 final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws 
and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final 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 Part 91

    Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 91 as follows:

PART 91--INSPECTION AND HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR EXPORTATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 19 U.S.C. 1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 
136, 136a, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 
371.4.

0
2. In Sec.  91.1, the definition of official brucellosis vaccinate is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  91.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Official brucellosis vaccinate. An official adult vaccinate or an 
official

[[Page 40066]]

calfhood vaccinate as defined in Sec.  78.1 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 91.5 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the word ``or'' at the end of 
paragraph (a)(1)(i); by removing the citation ``9 CFR 77.1'' in 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and adding the citation ``Sec.  77.7 of this 
chapter'' in its place; by removing the period at the end of paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) and adding a semicolon in its place; and by adding new 
paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) to read as set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the word ``or'' at the end of 
paragraph (b)(1)(iv), by removing the period at the end of paragraph 
(b)(1)(v) and adding a semicolon in its place, and by adding new 
paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1)(vii) to read as set forth below.


Sec.  91.5  Cattle.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Cattle exported to a country that does not require cattle 
from the United States to be tested for tuberculosis as described in 
this part; or
    (iv) Cattle exported from a State designated as an Accredited-free 
State in Sec.  77.7 of this chapter to a country that does not require 
cattle from Accredited-free States to be tested for tuberculosis as 
described in this part.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Cattle exported to a country that does not require cattle from 
the United States to be tested for brucellosis as described in this 
part; or
    (vii) Cattle exported from a State designated as a Class Free State 
in Sec.  78.41 of this chapter to a country that does not require 
cattle from Class Free States to be tested for brucellosis as described 
in this part.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-14177 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P