[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27269-27275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11559]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 27269]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 309
[Docket No. FSIS-2014-0020]
RIN 0583-AD54
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal
Calves
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to
amend its regulations on ante-mortem inspection to remove a provision
that permits establishments to set apart and hold for treatment veal
calves that are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk
because they are tired or cold. Under the proposed rule, non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter will be condemned
and promptly euthanized. Prohibiting the slaughter of all non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves will improve compliance with the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA) and the humane slaughter
implementing regulations. It will also improve the Agency's inspection
efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS inspection program
personnel (IPP) spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves. FSIS is also proposing to clarify in the regulations that all
non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be promptly disposed of after they
have been condemned.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the
ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this
Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patriots
Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A,
Washington, DC 20250-3700.
Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots
Plaza 3, 355 E. Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must
include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2014-0020. Comments
received in response to this docket will be made available for public
inspection and posted without change, including any personal
information, to http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone:
(202) 205-0495.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulatory Requirements for Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal
Under 9 CFR 309.3(e), non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are
offered for slaughter, including those that have become non-ambulatory
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and
disposed of properly. However, under 9 CFR 309.13(b), non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that are able to rise from a recumbent position
and walk after they have been set aside and warmed or rested, and that
are found to be otherwise free from disease, may be slaughtered for
human food under appropriate FSIS supervision.
In 2009, FSIS amended 9 CFR 309.3(e) to remove the case-by-case
disposition determination of cattle that became non-ambulatory disabled
after ante-mortem inspection to ensure that animals that may be unfit
for human food do not proceed to slaughter and to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the inspection system (74 FR 11463).
FSIS decided that establishments could continue to set aside veal
calves that were tired or cold because these conditions could be
treated before presenting the animals for slaughter.
Petition From the Humane Society of the United States
In November 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
submitted a petition requesting that FSIS amend its regulations to
remove the provision that allows veal calves that are non-ambulatory
disabled because they are tired or cold to be set aside to be warmed or
rested (9 CFR 309.13(b)). The petition requested that FSIS amend its
regulations to require that all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
offered for slaughter be condemned and promptly euthanized. The
petition is available on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ddd8b7c-983f-4cb1-83e8-9e545e9345d0/Petition_HSUS_Humane_Handling.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
To support the requested action, the petition referred to video
footage from an HSUS undercover investigation at an official veal
slaughter establishment in August 2009. The video footage documents
incidents in which the establishment owner and his employees repeatedly
used electric prods and physical force to attempt to get non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise.
After the release of the video footage, FSIS conducted its own
investigation which found that the establishment repeatedly failed to
handle animals humanely. FSIS immediately shut down the establishment,
and Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack ordered the USDA's Office
of Inspector General to conduct a criminal investigation. The
establishment was only allowed to reopen under a new name and different
ownership after reaching an agreement with FSIS that its facilities
would be audited by an outside firm on a regular basis, and that
employees would receive special training on humane handling of animals.
HSUS's petition asserted that the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) is
inconsistent with the language and intent of the HMSA because it fails
to ensure that the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter
be carried out only by humane methods (see 7 U.S.C. 1902). Similarly,
the petition asserted that failing to require immediate euthanasia
creates a financial incentive for establishments to engage in abusive
conduct because a non-ambulatory disabled calf is worthless unless it
is slaughtered. The petition asserted that removing the provision from
9 CFR
[[Page 27270]]
309.13(b) would eliminate uncertainty as to what is to be done with
veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or
cold, or because they are injured or sick, thereby ensuring the
appropriate disposition of these animals. The petition also maintained
that removing the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) would improve inspection
efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the
treatment of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.
On February 7, 2011, FSIS published a document in the Federal
Register requesting public comments on the HSUS petition (76 FR 6572).
In the document, the Agency explained that it had tentatively decided
to grant the HSUS petition but determined that it would be useful to
solicit public input on the issues raised in the petition before making
a final decision. FSIS stated that the Agency believed that prohibiting
slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves may remove
potential uncertainty in determining the disposition of calves that
have been set aside and would be consistent with the requirements for
the other classes of non-ambulatory disabled cattle. FSIS also stated
that prohibiting the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
would better ensure effective implementation of ante-mortem inspection
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(a) and of humane handling requirements
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. FSIS
received approximately 75,000 comment letters on the petition. Most of
the comments were form letters from a write-in campaign HSUS had
organized. A summary of comments and the Agency's responses is below.
After carefully considering the issues raised in the petition and
comments submitted in response to the Federal Register document (76 FR
6572), FSIS granted the HSUS petition on March 13, 2013, and announced
that the Agency would begin rulemaking when resources allowed.
Recent Investigation
On January 23, 2014, FSIS initiated an investigation into
allegations of inhumane slaughter and handling of veal calves, covertly
captured on video by HSUS, at another official veal slaughter
establishment. Among other things, the video footage documents
incidents in which veal slaughter establishment employees use physical
force to attempt to get non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.
After reviewing the video footage and other evidence, FSIS found
that the establishment did have a comprehensive systematic approach to
its humane handling program, but that the approach was not consistently
applied. As a result, FSIS withdrew its inspectors from the slaughter
operations at the establishment, thereby halting slaughter operations,
until the establishment provided the Agency with corrective actions and
further planned preventive measures that would ensure that livestock at
the establishment would be slaughtered humanely. The establishment
provided the Agency with corrective and preventive actions on January
24, 2014. After a thorough review and evaluation of these materials,
FSIS notified the establishment that its suspension would be held in
abeyance on February 3, 2014. FSIS continues to verify that the
establishment's corrective and further-planned actions are implemented
and effective.
Comments and Responses
Approximately 70,000 comment letters that expressed support for the
HSUS petition were submitted as part of the HSUS write-in campaign.
FSIS also received over 4,000 comment letters in support of the
petition from other write-in campaigns, animal welfare organizations,
private citizens, and two veterinary associations. FSIS received
approximately 200 comments from trade associations representing meat
processors, cattle producers, dairy producers, and farm bureaus, as
well as individual dairy farmers, veal processors, cattle producers,
and private citizens that opposed granting the petition.
Comments: Most of the commenters that supported the petition stated
that the regulation that allows veal calves to be set apart and held
for treatment violates the HMSA because it encourages conduct such as
dragging, kicking, excessive shocking, and other means of forced
movement that are clearly prohibited. The commenters asserted that FSIS
cannot reasonably justify imposing a higher protective standard for
mature cattle than it does for calves.
The comments in support of the petition also asserted that granting
the petition would eliminate incentives for veal calf producers to send
extremely weak calves to slaughter, thereby improving on-farm
conditions and conditions during transportation for these animals.
According to the comments, veal calves are often fed all-liquid diets
that are intended to be deficient in iron, making these animals more
susceptible to gastrointestinal disorders and diseases. The comments
also stated that veal calves are subjected to cruel confinement
practices that contribute to their weakened condition. The comments
stated that veal calf producers have the means to prevent conditions
that can predispose calves to collapse at slaughter, and, therefore,
the regulations should encourage improvements in on-farm and
transportation practices.
Many commenters in support of granting the petition asserted that
rescinding the regulation that allows veal calves to be set apart and
held for treatment would improve inspection efficiency and ensure the
appropriate disposition of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves on ante-
mortem inspection. The commenters argued that the rescission would
eliminate the uncertainty inherent in determining whether these animals
are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold, or because
they are injured or sick.
Some commenters asserted that the Agency had not articulated the
nature of the ``uncertainty'' in determining the disposition of non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that it seeks to avoid by granting the
HSUS petition. The commenters stated that such ``uncertainty'' could
not be attributed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) concerns
because veal calves are too young to present a BSE risk. The commenters
asserted that conditions that are commonly observed in veal calves can
readily be treated before these animals are presented for slaughter.
Response: Although FSIS has determined that cattle younger than 30
months do not present a serious risk of BSE, veal calves are vulnerable
to other systemic and metabolic diseases and injury because of
inadequate immunoglobulin transfer, nutritional inadequacies of an all-
liquid iron-deficient diet, activity restriction, and stress. For
example, veal calves are acutely susceptible to enteritis, which is the
inflammation of the small intestine caused by infection that may lead
to diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and dehydration. If adopted, this
proposed rule will eliminate the time that FSIS IPP spend determining
whether veal calves are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired
or cold or because they have diseases like enteritis. This proposed
rule will also eliminate the time that FSIS IPP spend re-inspecting
veal calves if they are again offered for slaughter. Therefore, this
proposed rule will increase the time FSIS IPP can focus on other
inspection activities.
Comments: Several comments, most from trade associations
representing
[[Page 27271]]
meat processors, stated that instead of encouraging inhumane handling,
allowing non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to be set apart for
treatment gives these animals an opportunity to naturally show that
they can gain the strength to rise and become ambulatory through
additional nourishment and care. Therefore, the commenters asserted,
allowing veal calves time to rest and gain warmth is, in fact,
inherently humane. According to the commenters, granting the petition
would do little to improve humane handling of veal calves because the
slaughter establishments that do exercise their option to allow tired
or cold non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rest do handle these
calves humanely.
Response: The 2009 inhumane handling incident referred to in the
HSUS petition and the 2014 inhumane handling incident described above
demonstrate that these animals are not always given an opportunity to
naturally show that they can gain the strength to rise and become
ambulatory through additional nourishment and care. FSIS also reviewed
non-compliance records (NRs) from 2012 to 2014 and found three
instances where FSIS inspectors observed ambulatory veal calves walk
over non-ambulatory disabled veal calves and one instance where non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves were physically lifted and dropped into
holding pens. While these instances of non-compliance were corrected
through corrected actions, FSIS has found that allowing reinspection of
NAD veal may have created an incentive for some establishments to
inhumanely attempt to force these animals to rise. In addition,
allowing reinspection may have encouraged establishments or livestock
producers to hold ill or injured veal calves from slaughter longer in
an attempt to allow them to sufficiently recover to pass the
reinspection before collapsing. FSIS is concerned that these veal
calves may not have adequate access to water. From 2012 to 2014, FSIS
documented over 30 NRs for failure to provide water in accordance with
Sec. 313.2(e). Furthermore, veal calves may not be able to drink the
water that establishments provide because they are used to drinking
from a bottle. Therefore, FSIS has determined that a change in the
regulation is needed to ensure more effective and efficient
implementation of inspection procedures and compliance with humane
handling requirements at official veal slaughter establishments.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that FSIS should only amend the
provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) to prohibit the slaughter of non-
ambulatory disabled ``bob veal,'' which are calves generally less than
one week old. The commenters argued that bob veal should be treated
differently than formula-fed and non-formula-fed calves. The comment
recommended limiting the prohibition to bob veal because they are
younger and weaker and thus more likely to become non-ambulatory
disabled at slaughter than the older calves.
A trade association representing farmers and processors of formula-
fed veal noted that the inhumane handling incident referred to in the
HSUS petition took place at a bob veal calf slaughter establishment.
The commenter noted that bob veal calves are a small segment of young
dairy calves that have not received the individualized care that is
typical at a formula-fed veal farm. The commenter stated that farmers
of formula-fed veal select the highest quality and healthiest bull
calves available in sale barns or directly from dairy farmers. The
commenter explained that the formula-fed veal calves raised in the U.S.
receive individualized and specialized care and husbandry on veal farms
until they are 20-22 weeks or approximately 450-500 pounds. The
commenter noted that this treatment is in contrast to how bob veal
calves, which are typically younger, weaker, and lighter calves, are
treated. The commenter stated that a formula-fed veal calf that has
been raised to market-weight carries a significant loss of investment
compared to a bob veal calf that has not received the same individual
care. According to the commenter, based on market value in 2013, a
typical farmer of formula-fed veal is likely to lose $800 for each
otherwise healthy non-ambulatory disabled veal calf that cannot proceed
to slaughter compared with the $10-25 loss for each bob veal calf.
Response: While the 2009 inhumane handling incident referred to in
the HSUS petition took place at a bob veal calf slaughter
establishment, the 2014 inhumane handling incident described above took
place at a formula-fed veal calf slaughter establishment. Based on the
evidence found in these investigations, FSIS believes that a change in
the regulation is needed to ensure that there is better compliance with
humane handling requirements at all official veal slaughter
establishments and more effective and efficient implementation of
inspection procedures.
Also, as discussed below, the Agency's analysis of the estimated
costs of this rule to formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal slaughter
establishments would be about $0 to $8,225.00 annually, which is
insignificant compared to their annual market value of about $283
million to $366 million.
Proposed Amendments to 9 CFR 309.13(b) and 309.3(e)
The above-mentioned incidents of inhumane handling at official veal
calf slaughter establishments in 2009 and 2014 demonstrate that the
provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) may create an incentive for establishments
to inhumanely force non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise and may
provide an incentive for livestock producers and establishments to send
weakened veal calves to slaughter in the hope that the veal calves are
able to sufficiently recover to pass ante-mortem inspection. Sending
such weakened veal calves to slaughter increases the chances that they
will go down and then be subjected to conditions that are inhumane.
This proposed rule will remove the incentive to send such weakened veal
calves to slaughter and decrease the chances of inhumane conditions. In
addition, prohibiting the slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves will be consistent with the requirements for the other classes
of non-ambulatory disabled cattle.
Therefore, after evaluating the comments, NRs, and information from
the 2009 and 2014 incidents discussed above, FSIS is proposing to
remove the second sentence in 9 CFR 309.13(b) that permits veal calves
that are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk because they
are tired or cold to be set apart and held for treatment.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 309.3(e) to clarify
in the regulations that non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered
for slaughter must be condemned and promptly disposed of properly. FSIS
is proposing to make this change in response to questions from
establishments on when non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be condemned
and disposed of properly. In the preamble to the 2009 final rule,
``Requirements for the Disposition of Cattle that Become Non-Ambulatory
Disabled Following Ante-Mortem Inspection'' (74 FR 11463; March 18,
2009), FSIS explained that the HMSA and regulations require that non-
ambulatory disabled cattle be humanely handled and that humane handling
requires that such cattle be promptly euthanized (74 FR 11464).
``Promptly'' means within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts
and circumstances. Under this proposed rule, non-
[[Page 27272]]
ambulatory disabled cattle (including veal calves) that are offered for
slaughter will have to be condemned and promptly euthanized.
Also under this proposed rule, the carcasses, parts thereof, meat,
or meat food products of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves will be
considered unfit for human food and thus adulterated. The reinspection
of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves by IPP will be discontinued,
increasing the time IPP can focus on other inspection activities.
FSIS is proposing this rule under 21 U.S.C. 621, which gives FSIS
the authority to adopt regulations for the efficient administration of
the FMIA. The amendment in this proposal is intended to facilitate more
effective implementation of ante-mortem inspection pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 603(a) and of the humane handling requirements established
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(b).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a ``significant''
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under E.O. 12866.
Baseline
In calendar year (CY) 2013, federally-inspected veal calf
establishments slaughtered a total of 725,020 veal calves (Table 1).
Market value estimates for slaughtered veal calves based on data
reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS), were between $283 million and $366 million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bob Veal Market Value: $8.40-$90.00 per head, Data derived
from USDA/AMS Lancaster County Weekly Cattle Summary (LS_LN145)
Reports--03/03/2013, 06/21/2013, 09/27/2013, 12/20/2013; Formula and
Non Formula-fed veal Market Value: $872.35-$1,028.09 per head, Data
derived from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary Reports--calendar
year 2013.
Table 1--Total Veal Calves Slaughtered and Market Value, CY 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min market Max market
Veal calf type Sum of head value value
count (1,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal........................................................ 405.6 $3.4 $36.5
Formula-fed Veal................................................ 310.8 271.3 319.7
Non Formula-fed Veal............................................ 8.6 7.9 9.3
-----------------------------------------------
Grand Total *............................................... 725.0 282.6 365.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Head Slaughtered source--FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS).
* Sum may not add up due to rounding.
The U.S. veal industry is made up of establishments in the small
and very small Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-size
categories.\2\ Table 2 outlines the number of establishments and the
total head slaughtered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ HACCP size: Very Small Establishment = Less than 10
employees or less than $2.5 million in annual sales; Small
Establishment = 10-499 employees; Large Establishment = 500 or more
employees.
Table 2--The Number of Veal Calves Slaughtered in Official Establishments, by HACCP Processing Size, in CY 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number Formula-fed Non formula-
HACCP processing size of Bob veal SL veal SL fed veal SL Total SL
establishments (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small........................... 46 275.3 310.7 1.4 587.4
Very Small...................... 146 130.3 .125 7.2 137.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total *..................... 192 405.6 310.8 8.6 725.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FSIS, PHIS.
* Sum may not add up due to rounding.
Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule
The expected costs of the proposed rule for the veal establishments
are a result of the lost market value of the non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves that the affected establishments will no longer be able to
slaughter for human food. The addition of the word ``promptly'' to 9
CFR 309.3(e) would not have any expected costs.
To estimate the total first year cost to the veal industry, FSIS
used CY 2013 PHIS data to obtain the expected minimum and maximum
percent of non-ambulatory disabled calves out of the current veal
calves slaughtered. Since FSIS did not have an exact count of the
number of veal calves that were non-ambulatory and were re-inspected
(after the calves rested and were able to move) and then sent for
slaughter, the agency assumed that the number of deleted records \3\ in
PHIS was a close approximation that represented the scenario. FSIS is
seeking comments on this assumption. FSIS applied those multipliers to
the number of calves slaughtered in CY 2013 (see Table 3, below). The
lower and upper bounds respectively, based on table 3, were
[[Page 27273]]
0.069% and 0.42% for non-ambulatory disabled affected bob veal calves,
and 0.000% and 0.002% for the combined group of non-ambulatory disabled
formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal calves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The records are not permanently deleted, but are marked and
saved in another field of PHIS.
Table 3--The Distribution of FSIS Condemned Veal Calves by Category, for
CY 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max percent
Min percent non-
non- ambulatory
Category ambulatory disabled veal
disabled veal affected
affected affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal................................ 0.069 0.420
Formula- and Non Formula-fed Veal....... 0.000 0.002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FSIS, PHIS.
Using the minimum and maximum values of non-ambulatory disabled
affected veal calves, FSIS estimated the expected minimum and maximum
total first year cost to the veal establishments, based on CY 2013
data.
Table 4--Expected Quantified Total Costs to the U.S. Veal Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula- &
Bob veal non formula-
fed veal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Percent Affected................ 0.069% 0.000%
Maximum Percent Affected................ 0.420% 0.002%
Min # of Veal Affected.................. 282 0
Max # of Veal Affected.................. 1702 8
Min Price per Head...................... 8.4 872.35
Max Price per Head...................... 90 1028.09
Minimum Cost............................ 2368.8 0
Maximum Cost............................ 153180 8224.72
Minimum U.S. Industry Cost.............. 2368.8 ..............
Maximum U.S. Industry Cost.............. 161404.72 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the proposed rule is adopted, non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves will not be re-inspected during ante-mortem inspection. The veal
calves that are condemned during ante-mortem inspection will be
euthanized. The cost of disposing of the dead calves varies across the
region. We do not have adequate data to cost out the disposal fees for
dead calves since we do not know how many establishments engage in this
practice. Therefore, FSIS is seeking comments and any available data on
this practice.
The estimated annual cost to the veal industry would range between
$2369 and $161405. The bob veal category would be the most affected
section of the veal industry because, as shown in table 4, both the
minimum and maximum numbers of bob veal calves that are non-ambulatory
disabled at ante-mortem inspection exceed the numbers of formula-fed
and non-formula-fed veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled at
ante-mortem inspection. According to comments to the petition and data
provided by AMS, bob veal are also the weakest and the most vulnerable
category of veal calves, and have the lowest market value to the
industry.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
FSIS predicts that this rule would provide Agency personnel with
savings in terms of inspection time. According to PHIS data, it takes
an inspector around 15 minutes to re-inspect a calf. Since FSIS will
not have to re-inspect the veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled
during ante-mortem inspection to determine their disposition, the
Agency will save anywhere from 70.5 hours (minimum) to 428 hours
(maximum) in total. This time will allow the inspector the ability to
engage in other inspection activities instead.
Table 5--Benefits in Terms of Time Saving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob veal (15
Time to do ante-mortem inspection min) F & NF fed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min # of Veal Affected.................. 282 0
Max # of Veal Affected.................. 1702 8
Min time saved.......................... 70.5 0
Max time saved.......................... 425.5 2
Total Minimum Time Saved................ 70.5 hr
Total Maximum Time Saved................ 427.5 hr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule will ensure the humane disposition of the non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves. It will also increase the efficiency
and effective implementation of inspection and humane handling
requirements at official establishments. This rule would incentivize
growers and transporters of cattle to improve animal welfare, both,
[[Page 27274]]
before and during transport. A recent study conducted by researchers
from the University Of Manitoba Department Of Animal Science's
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, has shown
that transport and transport conditions, such as temperature, length of
the trip, and space allowance (density of animals to size), are
associated with cattle being dead, lame, and non-ambulatory at the
unload. Of all the classes of cattle, calves, and cull cattle were the
``more likely to be dead and non-ambulatory during the journey'', the
study points. The authors indicate that animal condition upon loading
plays an important risk factor in the outcome of the journey. The study
concludes that, even though dead, lame, and non-ambulatory animals had
very low incidences, the fact of being one or another indicated
extremely poor welfare conditions of cattle. Since veal calves are a
vulnerable population, those implied in transporting cattle should be
encouraged to do so in a more humane and careful way. In addition,
growers should be incentivized to grow healthier and stronger animals
that can handle the stress and other issues associated with
transportation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Gonz[aacute]lez, L.A., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Bryan,
M., Silasi, R., and Brown F. (2015). ``Relationship between
transport conditions and welfare outcomes during commercial long
haul transport of cattle in North America''. American Society of
Animal Science, 90(10):3640-51 doi: 10.2527/jas2011-4796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
FSIS has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). FSIS is seeking comments on
this determination.
The Agency estimates that this rule would possibly affect 192 small
and very small HACCP size veal slaughter establishments (as seen in
table 2). Even though so many small and very small establishments are
affected by this rule the volume of veal that will not be eligible for
slaughter is very low. Further, the estimated total annual cost per
establishment to the industry is between $12 (total minimum cost/number
of establishments=2369/192) and $841 (total maximum cost/number of
establishments=$161405/192).
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520).
E-Government Act
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-
Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things,
promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies
and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. Under this proposed rule: (1) All State and local
laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be
preempted, (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and
(3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation
will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and
will not have significant Tribal implications.
USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status,
income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs,
exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to
discrimination any person in the United States under any program or
activity conducted by the USDA.
How To File a Complaint of Discrimination
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program
Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your
authorized representative.
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax,
or email:
Mail
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication,
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
Fax
(202) 690-7442.
Email
[email protected].
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact
USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal
Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through
the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information
regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register
notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that
could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and
stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the
Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more
diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription
service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food
safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export
information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or
delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password
protect their accounts.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 309
Animal diseases, Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9
CFR part 309 as follows:
PART 309--ANTE-MORTEM INSPECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
2. Section 309.3(e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 309.3 Dead, dying, disabled, or diseased and similar livestock.
* * * * *
[[Page 27275]]
(e) Establishment personnel must notify FSIS inspection personnel
when cattle become non-ambulatory disabled after passing ante-mortem
inspection. Non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered for
slaughter must be condemned and promptly disposed of in accordance with
Sec. 309.13.
Sec. 309.13 [AMENDED]
0
3. Section 309.13(b) is amended by removing the second sentence.
Done in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2015.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-11559 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P