[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49112-49137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17648]



[[Page 49111]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 143

July 26, 2016

Part VI





 Department of Agriculture





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





 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service





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





9 CFR Part 11





 Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and Other 
Amendments; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 49112]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 11

[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009]
RIN 0579-AE19


Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and 
Other Amendments

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the horse protection regulations to 
provide that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
will train and license Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs) to inspect 
horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions for compliance 
with the Horse Protection Act. DQPs are currently trained and licensed 
through programs certified by APHIS and initiated and maintained by 
horse industry organizations (HIOs). Under this proposal, APHIS will 
train and license DQPs on an individual basis. The proposed changes to 
the regulations would relieve HIOs of all regulatory burdens and 
requirements. We would also establish a process by which APHIS could 
revoke the license of a DQP for professional misconduct or failure to 
conduct inspections in accordance with the regulations. We would 
establish requirements to minimize conflicts of interest between DQPs 
and others within the horse industry that enable the practice of 
soring. We are also proposing several changes to the responsibilities 
of management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, as well 
as changes to the list of devices, equipment, substances, and practices 
that can cause soring or are otherwise prohibited under the Horse 
Protection Act and regulations. Additionally, we are proposing to amend 
the inspection procedures that DQPs are required to perform. These 
actions would strengthen existing requirements intended to protect 
horses from the unnecessary and cruel practice of soring and eliminate 
unfair competition.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before 
September 26, 2016. We will also consider comments made at public 
hearings to be held in Murfreesboro, TN, on Tuesday, August 9, 2016; 
Lexington, KY, on Wednesday, August 10, 2016; Sacramento, CA, on 
Tuesday, August 16, 2016; Riverdale, MD, on Tuesday, September 6, 2016; 
and during a virtual public hearing on Wednesday, September 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0009.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to 
Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may 
be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-
0009 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
    Public Hearings: Public hearings regarding this rule will be held 
at the following locations:
    1. Murfreesboro, TN: Embassy Suites, 1200 Conference Center 
Boulevard, Murfreesboro, TN.
    2. Lexington, KY: Clarion Hotel Lexington, 1950 Newtown Pike, 
Lexington, KY.
    3. Sacramento, CA: Courtyard Sacramento Airport Natomas, 2101 River 
Plaza Drive, Sacramento, CA.
    4. Riverdale, MD: USDA Center at Riverside, 4700 River Road, 
Riverdale, MD.
    5. A virtual public hearing will also be held. Persons wishing to 
participate in the virtual hearing are required to register at http://ems7.intellor.com?do=register&t=1&p=706174. Upon registering, persons 
will receive an email containing dial-in numbers and a personalized 
access code.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, Assistant 
Deputy Administrator, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, 
Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearings

    We are advising the public that we are hosting five public hearings 
on this proposed rule. The first public hearing will be held in 
Murfreesboro, TN, on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, beginning at 9 a.m. local 
time. The second public hearing will be held in Lexington, KY, on 
Wednesday, August 10, 2016, beginning at 9 a.m. local time. The third 
public hearing will be held in Sacramento, CA, on Tuesday, August 16, 
2016, beginning at 9 a.m. local time. The fourth public hearing will be 
held in Riverdale, MD, on Tuesday, September 6, 2016, beginning at 9 
a.m. local time. The fifth public hearing, which will be conducted as 
virtual hearing, will be held on Wednesday, September 15, 2016, 
beginning at 5 p.m. EDT. Each hearing will begin at the appointed time 
and may continue for up to 4 hours depending on the number of persons 
desiring to speak. Each hearing may be terminated at any time (i.e., 
prior to the expiration of the 4 hour time period) if all persons 
desiring to speak and who are present in the hearing room or 
participating in the virtual hearing have been heard.
    A representative of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) will preside at each of the public hearings. Any interested 
person may appear and be heard in person, by attorney, or by other 
representative. For the virtual hearing, any person may call in to be 
heard. Information about the hearings can be viewed online at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/horse-protection-amendments. Written statements may be submitted and will be made part 
of the hearing record. A transcript of the public hearings will be 
placed in the rulemaking record and will be available for public 
inspection.
    Registration is required to speak at one or more of the public 
hearings. Registration for the face-to-face hearings may also be 
accomplished by registering with the presiding officer 30 minutes prior 
to the scheduled start of each hearing (i.e., 8:30 a.m. local time). 
Persons who wish to speak at a hearing will be asked to sign in with 
their name and organization to establish a record for the hearing. We 
ask that anyone who reads a statement provide two copies to the 
presiding officer at the hearing. The presiding officer may limit the 
time for each presentation so that all interested persons appearing at 
the face-to-face hearings, or calling in to the virtual hearing, have 
an opportunity to participate.
    The purpose of the hearings is to give interested persons an 
opportunity for presentation of data, views, and arguments. Questions 
about the content of the proposed rule may be part of the commenters' 
oral presentations. However, neither the presiding officer nor any 
other representative of APHIS will respond to comments at the hearings, 
except to clarify or explain provisions of the proposed rule.
    Information on the public hearings can be found on the Internet at 
https://

[[Page 49113]]

www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/horse-protection-
amendments.
    If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language 
interpreter, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1821-
1831), referred to below as the Act, or the HPA, to eliminate the 
practice of soring by prohibiting the showing or selling of sored 
horses. The regulations in 9 CFR part 11 implement the Act.
    In the Act, Congress found and declared that the soring of horses 
is cruel and inhumane. The Act states that the term ``sore'' when used 
to describe a horse means that:
     An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, 
internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse;
     Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a 
person on any limb of a horse;
     Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected 
by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse; or
     Any other substance or device has been used by a person on 
any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a 
horse;

and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or 
practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, 
physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, 
trotting, or otherwise moving.
    Soring has been primarily used in the training of Tennessee Walking 
Horses, Racking Horses, and related breeds to produce an exaggerated 
gait for competition. However, the Act is intended to enforce 
prohibitions against soring in all horse breeds. In addition to 
declaring that the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane, Congress 
found that horses shown or exhibited that are sore compete unfairly 
with horses that are not sore. Congress further found that the 
movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate 
commerce adversely affects and burdens interstate and foreign commerce 
because it creates unfair competition, deceives the spectating public 
and horse buyers, and negatively impacts horse sales.
    Section 4 of the Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1823), requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe by regulation requirements for 
the appointment by the management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction (referred to below as ``show management'') of persons qualified 
to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect 
horses for the purpose of enforcing the Act. Although show management 
is not required to appoint these so called ``designated qualified 
persons'' (DQPs) to inspect horses, if show management chooses not to 
do so, it may be liable for violating the HPA if it fails to disqualify 
a sore horse. If, alternatively, show management appoints DQPs, it may 
be held liable only for failing to disqualify a sore horse after being 
notified by a DQP or by the Secretary of Agriculture, or his designee, 
that a horse is sore.
    To implement that amendment, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) established the DQP program in 1979. Horse industry 
organizations with a DQP program certified by APHIS (referred to as 
HIOs, below), are responsible for training and licensing DQPs to 
inspect horses at shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions. Under this 
program, DQPs are trained and licensed by the HIO to inspect horses to 
determine compliance with the Act and regulations.
    In response to public concerns about the ability of APHIS' Horse 
Protection Program to detect and prevent soring, the United States 
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG) evaluated APHIS' oversight of the program. OIG examined whether 
inspections conducted by HIO-trained and licensed DQPs to detect soring 
were adequate and whether occasional, unannounced inspections by APHIS 
officials provided sufficient oversight of DQPs.
    In September 2010, OIG issued a report concluding, among other 
things, that the DQP program for inspecting gaited horses is not 
adequate to ensure that horses are not being sored for the purposes of 
enhanced performance, in part because it found that DQPs have a ``clear 
conflict of interest'' with respect to their decisions on whether or 
not to identify a violation of the HPA. To remove that conflict of 
interest and to achieve the goals of the HPA, OIG recommended that 
APHIS eliminate the DQP program in its current form and assume a direct 
involvement in the accreditation and monitoring of horse inspectors and 
the conditions and procedures of the horse inspection process.

 Summary of Major Provisions

    APHIS agrees with the OIG's conclusion that the current program of 
HIOs training and licensing DQPs is not adequately detecting soring or 
promoting enforcement of the Act. We are proposing several provisions 
to the regulations in 9 CFR part 11 that will increase APHIS' ability 
to oversee the Horse Protection program and enforce provisions of the 
Act and regulations. Changes we are proposing to the regulations 
include:
     Having APHIS assume the training, licensing, and 
monitoring of third-party, independent inspectors to conduct 
inspections at shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions,
     Amending the regulations to prohibit use of pads, 
substances, and action devices on horses at horse shows, exhibitions, 
sales, and auctions,
     Adding licensing eligibility requirements for DQPs \1\ and 
revising training requirements and inspection procedures,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As we explain later in this document, we propose to change 
the term ``Designated Qualified Person'' throughout the regulations 
to ``Horse Protection Inspector,'' or HPI, as the latter term more 
accurately describes the tasks performed by these persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending existing access, space, and facility requirements 
for management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions,
     Amending management recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements,
     Ensuring there are at least 2 DQPs employed at shows in 
which 150 horses or fewer are entered, and more than 2 DQPs for shows 
at which more than 150 horses are entered,
     Requiring that a farrier be available at every horse show, 
exhibition, sale, and auction, and
     Removing from the regulations all regulatory 
responsibilities pertaining to HIOs.

II. Costs and Benefits

    The proposed rule would promote the Act's goal of ending the 
unnecessary, cruel and inhumane practice of soring by helping to ensure 
that horses present at and participating in exhibitions, sales, shows, 
or auctions are not sored. This benefit is an unquantifiable animal 
welfare enhancement. Furthermore, these changes would further the 
statutory mandate of Congress to prohibit the showing or exhibiting of 
sored horses, remove the incentive to painfully mistreat horses, and 
prevent unfair competition by horses shown or exhibited that are sore. 
Congress also found that the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of 
sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely affects and burdens 
interstate and foreign commerce.
    The proposed amendments concerning management recordkeeping

[[Page 49114]]

and reporting, and granting of access, space, and facilities for 
inspections, are intended to consolidate or clarify existing provisions 
of the HPA. These proposed changes are procedural and should not impose 
additional costs for the show management.
    Of these proposed amendments to the horse protection regulations, 
only the amendments requiring a farrier to be present for all shows and 
a minimum of 2 inspectors for shows with 150 or fewer horses and more 
than 2 inspectors for shows with more than 150 horses may result in 
additional costs for the shows or their participants.\2\ Based on APHIS 
estimates, the costs of services provided by veterinarians, farriers, 
and inspectors range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars. 
Many if not most of the entities that may be affected by this proposed 
rule are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional inspector oversight is needed for pre-inspection 
warm-up areas at shows and exhibitions, as we have observed that it 
is difficult for a single inspector to inspect and monitor 150 or 
more entries at a show. A farrier needs to be made available to 
remove a shoe so the inspector may examine a horse's hoof for 
evidence of soring. We note that shows frequently have a farrier 
present, so this requirement should not significantly affect current 
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the proposed rule would result in better oversight of 
inspectors and enforcement of the HPA, implementation of the proposed 
changes would result in additional administrative and technological 
tasks associated with training and licensing inspectors. These tasks 
include designing, coordinating, and delivering training and providing 
program guidance and oversight. With program allocated funds, APHIS 
personnel would support these additional training needs while 
continuing to attend a percentage of horse events in order to ensure 
consistency among inspectors, address performance concerns, and inspect 
horses for compliance with the Act.

Background

    In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1821-
1831), referred to below as the Act, or HPA, to eliminate the practice 
of soring by prohibiting the showing or selling of sored horses. The 
regulations in part 11, referred to below as the regulations, implement 
the Act.
    In the Act, Congress found and declared that the soring of horses 
is cruel and inhumane. The Act states that the term ``sore'' when used 
to describe a horse means that:
     An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, 
internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse;
     Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a 
person on any limb of a horse;
     Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected 
by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse; or
     Any other substance or device has been used by a person on 
any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a 
horse;

and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or 
practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, 
physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, 
trotting, or otherwise moving.
    Soring has been primarily used in the training of Tennessee Walking 
Horses, Racking Horses, and related breeds to produce an exaggerated 
gait for competition. However, the Act is intended to enforce 
prohibitions against soring in all horse breeds. Congress found that 
horses shown or exhibited that are sore compete unfairly with horses 
that are not sore. Congress further found that the movement, showing, 
exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely 
affects and burdens interstate and foreign commerce.
    Section 4 of the Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1823), requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe by regulation requirements for 
the appointment by the management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction (referred to below as ``show management'') of persons qualified 
to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect 
horses for the purpose of enforcing the Act. Although show management 
is not required to appoint these so called ``designated qualified 
persons'' (DQPs) to inspect horses, if management chooses not to do so, 
it may be liable for violating the HPA if it fails to disqualify a sore 
horse. If, alternatively, show management appoints DQPs, it may be held 
liable only for failing to disqualify a sore horse after being notified 
by a DQP or by the Secretary of Agriculture, or his designee, that a 
horse is sore.
    To implement that amendment, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) established the DQP program in 1979. Horse industry 
organizations with a DQP program certified by APHIS (referred to as 
HIOs, below), are responsible for training and licensing DQPs to 
inspect horses at shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions. Under this 
program, DQPs are trained and licensed by the HIO to inspect horses and 
determine compliance with the Act and regulations. In order to be 
certified by APHIS, HIO programs must meet the requirements in Sec.  
11.7 of the current regulations for licensing, training, recordkeeping 
and reporting, and DQP standards of conduct.
    Under the current regulations, show management can forego 
appointing and retaining a DQP and assume responsibility for ensuring 
that sored horses are not participating in their event. In most cases, 
however, shows appoint and retain DQPs licensed by certified HIOs. The 
HIO provides the show with DQPs to conduct inspections to determine 
compliance with the Act and regulations and may impose industry-
established penalties for violations identified in an HIO's rulebook. 
HIOs are currently required to provide at least 2 DQPs when more than 
150 horses are entered in an event and can pay the DQPs from fees paid 
to them by show management. Any horses discovered by the DQP to be in 
noncompliance with the Act or regulations must be reported to show 
management. Show management must then prohibit those horses from being 
shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned, and, if show management fails to 
do so, it will constitute noncompliance with the Act and regulations.
    With passage of the Horse Protection Act in 1970, APHIS' annual 
budget for the Horse Protection Program was set by Congress at $500,000 
\3\ yearly and has changed little since that time. Under this budget, 
APHIS sends officials to a small number of horse shows to observe DQPs 
and conduct inspections.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2014 and 2015, the budget allocation for the program was 
$697,000 for each year, amounting to a $197,000 annual increase over 
the budget set in 1970.
    \4\ Shows attended by USDA can be found on the APHIS Horse 
Protection Act Inspection and Enforcement Web page: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_hpa/activity-and-show-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DQPs trained and licensed by USDA-certified HIOs and appointed and 
retained by show management are the primary parties responsible for 
inspecting horses to determine compliance with the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DQP inspection data from 2010-2015 is located on the APHIS 
Horse Industry Organizations and Designated Qualified Persons Web 
page: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_hpa/ct_hpa_hio_and_dqps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of the Inspector General Audit

    In response to public concerns about the ability of the Horse 
Protection Program to detect and prevent soring, USDA's OIG conducted 
an evaluation of the program. The OIG examined whether inspections 
conducted by HIO-trained and licensed DQPs to detect

[[Page 49115]]

soring were adequate and whether occasional, unannounced inspections by 
APHIS officials provided sufficient oversight of DQPs. OIG auditors 
gathered evidence for the audit from several sources, including visits 
to horse shows and interviews with APHIS Horse Protection Program 
management and staff. In September 2010, OIG issued a report \6\ on 
APHIS' administration of the Horse Protection Program and the Slaughter 
Horse Transport Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ APHIS Administration of the Horse Protection Program and the 
Slaughter Horse Transport Program: Office of the Inspector General 
Audit Report. Available at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33601-02-KC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the report, the OIG auditors identified multiple conflicts of 
interest among DQPs, the HIOs that train, license, and employ them, 
horse exhibitors, and management of shows and exhibitions that 
affiliate with HIOs for inspection services. OIG auditors concluded 
that these conflicts of interest have contributed to sored horses being 
allowed to compete while sore. OIG auditors found that DQPs are 
reluctant to dismiss sored horses discovered during inspections because 
doing so inconveniences show management and makes it less likely the 
DQP will be hired for other shows. Moreover, some DQPs own and exhibit 
their own horses, so a DQP inspecting an exhibitor's horse at one show 
may be facing that exhibitor inspecting horses at another show. In such 
an environment, the OIG noted that DQPs frequently fail to visually and 
physically inspect horses in accordance with the Act and regulations.
    The OIG auditors found that DQPs avoid documenting instances of 
soring in several ways. DQPs often provide warnings to exhibitors when 
they detect soring in a horse, when under the regulations they are 
required to recommend to show management that the horse be prohibited 
from performing. The report also concluded that DQPs fail to 
sufficiently inspect and weigh chains, boots, and other action devices 
as currently required in the regulations.
    The report noted that when DQPs document noncompliance with the 
Act, they often identify a stable hand or a relative of the exhibitor 
as the alleged violator of the Act, so that the person actually 
responsible for the alleged violation can avoid responsibility. 
Furthermore, the report stated that there are no reliable controls in 
place to prevent an exhibitor who is serving an industry-issued 
suspension for a violation of an HIO's rulebook from competing in 
another show.
    APHIS veterinary medical officers conduct unannounced inspections 
at selected horse events to evaluate DQPs and to visually and 
physically inspect horses for indications of soring and determine 
compliance with the Act and regulations. However, as noted above, APHIS 
officials can only attend a small number of shows, sales, exhibitions 
and auctions each year. OIG noted that DQPs were much more likely to 
document noncompliance with the Act when APHIS was also present at a 
horse show. From the shows OIG reviewed, it found that DQPs issued 49 
percent of their total violations at the 6 percent of shows at which 
APHIS officials also attended.
    Given the above issues, the OIG report concluded that the DQP 
program for inspecting gaited horses is inadequate to ensure that 
horses are not being sored for the purposes of enhanced performance. 
OIG recommended that APHIS eliminate the DQP inspection program in its 
current form and assume a direct involvement in the licensing and 
monitoring of inspectors and the conditions and procedures of the horse 
inspection process.
    APHIS agrees with OIG's conclusion that the current program of HIOs 
training and licensing DQPs is not adequately detecting instances of 
soring. Our observations of inadequacies within the DQP program are 
consistent with those described by OIG auditors. Therefore, to achieve 
the Act's purpose of ending the soring of horses, additional changes to 
the regulations are necessary.
Proposed Changes to the Regulations
    In this rule, we are proposing to revise the Horse Protection 
regulations in 9 CFR part 11 to improve our enforcement of the Act and 
regulations. The proposed changes would include a reorganization of 
part 11 so that the requirements are clearer and better organized. The 
revised and new sections we propose would appear in the regulations as 
listed below:
    Sec.  11.1 Definitions.
    Sec.  11.2 Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.
    Sec.  11.3 Scar rule.
    Sec.  11.4 Providing required information.
    Sec.  11.5 Inspection and detention of horses; responsible parties.
    Sec.  11.6 Training and licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors 
(HPIs).
    Sec.  11.7 [Reserved]
    Sec.  11.8 [Reserved] \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sections 11.7 and 11.8 are reserved for future use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec.  11.9 Management responsibilities; access, space, and 
facilities.
    Sec.  11.10 Management responsibilities; operation of horse shows, 
horse exhibitions, and horse sales and auctions.
    Sec.  11.11 Management responsibilities; records and reporting.
    Sec.  11.12 Inspection procedures for HPIs.
    Sec.  11.13 Requirements concerning persons involved in 
transportation of certain horses.
    Changes we propose to make include the following:
     Changing the term ``Designated Qualified Person'' 
throughout the Horse Protection regulations to ``Horse Protection 
Inspector'' to more accurately describe the tasks performed by these 
persons.\8\ We are also proposing to revise the definition of this term 
in Sec.  11.1 to reflect our proposal to have APHIS assume the 
regulatory responsibility for training and licensing of DQPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In this document, we use the term ``Designated Qualified 
Person'' or ``DQP'' when referring to the current regulations. We 
use the term ``Horse Protection Inspector,'' or ``HPI,'' when 
referring to our proposed changes to the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Retitling Sec.  11.2 as ``Prohibited actions, practices, 
devices, and substances'' and prohibiting all action devices, pads, and 
substances applied to a horse's limbs. Also prohibited is any practice 
involving a horse, and, as a result of such practice, such horse 
suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or 
distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or 
otherwise moving.
     Moving the inspection and detention requirements in 
current Sec.  11.4 to a revised Sec.  11.5. We would move the 
prohibition against providing false information from current Sec.  
11.2(e) to Sec.  11.4 and retitle revised Sec.  11.4 as ``Providing 
required information.''
     Revising Sec.  11.5 so that it consolidates horse 
inspection and detention requirements that must be observed by 
custodians of horses and retitling it ``Inspection and detention of 
horses; responsible parties.'' Access to premises and records 
pertaining to exhibitors would remain in revised Sec.  11.5 and access 
pertaining to management would be moved to a new Sec.  11.9.
     Revising Sec.  11.6 to indicate that APHIS would undertake 
the training and licensing of horse inspectors and adding new 
requirements for license eligibility. We would retitle Sec.  11.6 as 
``Training and licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors.'' Inspection 
space and facility requirements currently in Sec.  11.6 would be moved 
to revised Sec.  11.5.
     Revising Sec.  11.7 by moving all inspector training and 
licensing

[[Page 49116]]

requirements to revised Sec.  11.6 so that all such inspector 
requirements are consolidated in one section. We would also remove from 
Sec.  11.7 all regulatory requirements pertaining to HIOs in this and 
all other sections of 9 CFR part 11, as HIOs would no longer have any 
regulatory responsibilities. Section 11.7 and a new Sec.  11.8 would be 
reserved.
     Adding a new Sec.  11.9, titled ``Management 
responsibilities; access, space, and facilities,'' that draws together 
access, space, and facility requirements from current Sec.  11.5 and 
other sections pertaining to management of horse shows, exhibitions, 
sales, and auctions. This section also includes proposed requirements 
that limit the number of persons allowed in designated horse inspection 
and warm-up areas and that prohibit show management from influencing 
attendees to interfere with the duties of authorized inspectors and 
APHIS representatives.
     Adding a new Sec.  11.10, titled ``Management 
responsibilities; operation of horse shows, horse exhibitions, and 
horse sales and auctions,'' that draws together operating requirements 
from other sections. This section also includes proposed requirements 
intended to prevent prohibited persons from participating in shows, 
exhibitions, sales, or auctions.
     Adding a new Sec.  11.11, titled ``Management 
responsibilities; records and reporting,'' that draws together 
management recordkeeping and reporting requirements from other 
sections. Included in this section is a provision that would provide 
additional time for management to provide APHIS with information for 
each horse prohibited by management or its representatives from being 
shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned.
     Adding a new Sec.  11.12, ``Inspection procedures for 
HPIs,'' that draws together inspection procedures for inspectors from 
Sec.  11.21 and other sections. In this section we also propose 
additional requirements to ensure that an inspector can conduct an 
effective inspection of the horse to determine compliance with the Act 
or regulations.
     Adding a new Sec.  11.13, titled ``Requirements concerning 
persons involved in transportation of certain horses,'' that draws 
together horse transportation requirements from Sec.  11.40 and other 
sections.
     Removing Sec. Sec.  11.20, 11.21, 11.22, 11.23, 11.24, 
11.25, 11.40, and 11.41 from the regulations. As noted above, some 
material from these sections would be moved to the proposed new and 
remaining sections of part 11. All regulatory responsibilities 
specifically pertaining to HIOs in these sections would be removed from 
the regulations.
    We now describe each section in our proposed revision of the Horse 
Protection regulations.
Definitions
    We would make changes to several terms and definitions in Sec.  
11.1 that reflect our proposed changes to the Horse Protection program.
    We would remove the definition for APHIS Show Veterinarian. We 
would continue to have APHIS veterinary staff attend shows and monitor 
inspections, but we would no longer formally use this title to refer to 
such staff.
    We would add a definition for the term custodian, which describes 
any person who is responsible for directing, controlling, and 
supervising the horse during inspection at any horse show, exhibition, 
sale, or auction. The definition includes any person who shows or 
exhibits, or enters for the purpose of showing or exhibiting in any 
horse show or horse exhibition any horse, as well as any person who 
sells, auctions, or offers for sale in any horse sale or auction any 
horse. The definition also includes any person who owns a horse and 
allows the horse to be shown, exhibited, or entered in a show or 
exhibition; sold, auctioned, or entered in a sale or auction; or 
transported for any of these purposes, as well as any person who 
transports a horse for any of these purposes. In addition, the 
custodian must be able to provide required information about the horse. 
We are proposing adding this term in order to more clearly identify the 
custodian.
    We are also proposing to change the current term Designated 
Qualified Person to Horse Protection Inspector in this section and 
throughout the regulations because it more accurately describes the 
duty performed by such persons. We would also amend the definition of 
this term to reflect our proposal to transfer to APHIS the regulatory 
responsibility to train and license inspectors. These Horse Protection 
Inspectors, or HPIs, would not be APHIS officials or employees, and 
APHIS would not pay them for performing their duties. We would indicate 
in our proposed definition that the management of a horse show, 
exhibition, sale, or auction can appoint and retain an APHIS-trained 
and licensed HPI to inspect horses and records pertaining to such 
horses for compliance with the HPA.
    A horse industry organization (HIO) is currently defined as ``an 
organized group of people, having a formal structure, who are engaged 
in the promotion of horses through the showing, exhibiting, sale, 
auction, registry, or any activity which contributes to the advancement 
of the horse.'' We propose to remove this definition from the 
definition section of the regulations. Under the changes we propose, 
the regulations in part 11 would remove all regulatory burdens and 
requirements pertaining to HIOs, including the requirements for 
certification of DQP programs, and recordkeeping, and other 
requirements specific to HIOs.
    The current regulations define inspection to mean ``the examination 
of any horse and any records pertaining to any horse by use of whatever 
means are deemed appropriate and necessary for the purpose of 
determining compliance with the Act and regulations.'' To clarify that 
this determination is made by APHIS, we would amend the definition of 
inspection to indicate any visual, physical, and diagnostic means 
approved by APHIS to determine compliance with the Act and regulations. 
The proposed definition would go on to explain that such inspection may 
include, but is not limited to, visual inspection of a horse and review 
of records, physical inspection of a horse, including touching, 
rubbing, palpating, and observation of vital signs, and the use of any 
diagnostic device or instrument, and may require the removal of any 
shoe or any other equipment, substance, or paraphernalia from the horse 
when deemed necessary by the person conducting such inspection.
    We would remove the definition for lubricant. Such substances are 
frequently used to reduce friction caused by action devices on the 
limbs of Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related horse 
breeds. However, as we propose to prohibit all action devices, 
lubricants would no longer be necessary.
    We also propose removing the term Regional Director from the 
definitions in Sec.  11.1. APHIS representatives performing Horse 
Protection Program duties are no longer supervised by a regional 
director.
    Finally, we would add a definition for the term substance. This 
term would be defined as any agent applied to a horse's limbs while a 
horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on 
the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. This 
definition would also include agents applied to a horse's limbs before 
and after a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or 
otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, 
or auction. We propose

[[Page 49117]]

to prohibit the presence of all substances on the limbs of any 
Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed while the 
horse is present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction.
Prohibited Actions, Practices, Devices, and Substances
    We propose to revise current Sec.  11.2, ``Prohibitions concerning 
exhibitors.'' We would amend this section by renaming it ``Prohibited 
actions, practices, devices, and substances,'' as our proposed revision 
of this section focuses on prohibiting actions, practices, devices, and 
substances that can be used to sore horses.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  11.2 currently prohibits any chain, boot, 
roller, collar, action device, and any other device, method, practice, 
or substance used with respect to any horse at any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can 
reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore. We would remove 
current paragraph (a), as the prohibitions it includes would be covered 
under paragraph (b), ``Specific prohibitions,'' and redesignate 
paragraph (b) as paragraph (a).
    In a 1979 rulemaking,\9\ APHIS amended several provisions of the 
Horse Protection regulations to prevent the showing, exhibiting, 
selling, or auctioning of sore horses. Among the provisions were those 
restricting the equipment, devices, and substances allowed to be 
present on horses. APHIS has observed from its experience in enforcing 
the Act and regulations that a relationship exists between the use of 
such items and soring in horses. APHIS stated in the rule that ``if the 
horse industry makes no effort to establish a workable self-regulatory 
program for the elimination of sore horses, or if such program is 
established but does not succeed in eliminating the sore horse within a 
reasonable length of time, the Department will give serious 
consideration to the prohibition of all action devices and pads.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Federal Register (44 FR 25172-25184), April 27, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we indicated we would do in the 1979 rule cited above, we have 
given serious consideration to prohibiting all action devices and pads, 
as the current industry inspection program has failed to adequately 
address instances of soring. The Department believes that 38 years has 
been more than enough time for the gaited horse industry to reform its 
training practices to comply with the Act. Therefore, to successfully 
and significantly reduce the number of sored horses shown, exhibited, 
sold, and auctioned, we are proposing to prohibit the use of pads, 
action devices, and substances on the limbs of any Tennessee Walking 
Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed.
    Our experience indicates that the majority of horse shows contain 
numerous classes, and that large numbers of horses participating in 
those shows are flat-shod horses (those that do not use the pads and 
action devices this proposed rule would seek to prohibit). Some shows 
are entirely flat-shod and already prohibit pads and action devices. To 
our knowledge, the proposed rule would not have any impact on those 
horses. Additionally, although action devices and pads would be 
prohibited, the horse itself would still be eligible to compete, albeit 
in classes that do not use action devices or pads. We welcome public 
comments as to how many flat-shod horses there are versus how many are 
entered into performance classes at HPA-covered events.
    Our proposal to prohibit the use of all such items that can induce 
soring, combined with a corps of third-party inspectors working 
independently of the horse industry, will place the Department in a 
stronger position to achieve the remedial purpose of the HPA, which is 
to eliminate the abusive practice of soring.
    We would add a new paragraph (a)(1) to Sec.  11.2 that prohibits 
any action device and a new paragraph (a)(2) that prohibits hoof bands, 
wedges, and pads at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. We 
would also remove current paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8). These 
paragraphs provide for restrictions regarding action devices and pads.
    Current paragraph (b)(9) of Sec.  11.2 prohibits the use of any 
weight on yearling horses, excepting a keg or similar horseshoe, and 
also prohibits horseshoes weighing more than 16 ounces on yearling 
horses.
    We would redesignate paragraph (b)(9) as (a)(3) and replace the 
term ``yearling horses'' with ``horses up to 2 years old.'' This change 
would clarify that horses younger than 1 year old are not yearlings but 
should be covered under the prohibitions in those paragraphs.
    Paragraphs (b)(10) and (11) of Sec.  11.2 currently include 
requirements for heel/toe ratios. Paragraph (b)(10) prohibits 
artificial toe lengthening, whether accomplished with pads, acrylics, 
or any other material, or combinations of these, that exceeds 50 
percent of the natural hoof length, as measured from the coronet band, 
at the center of the anterior pastern along the front of the hoof wall, 
to the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the toe. The 
artificial extension must be measured from the distal portion of the 
hoof wall at the tip of the toe at a 90 degree angle to the proximal 
hoof surface of the shoe.
    We would redesignate paragraph (b)(10) as paragraph (a)(4) and 
amend it by prohibiting all artificial toe lengthening. Toe lengthening 
involves the use of pads or foreign substances attached to the hoof, 
both of which we propose to prohibit.
    We would not include the provisions of paragraph (b)(11) of Sec.  
11.2 concerning artificial toe length measurements, as artificial toe 
lengthening would be prohibited under proposed Sec.  11.2(a)(4).
    We would remove current paragraph (b)(12) of Sec.  11.2, which 
contains provisions for hoof pads. Such pads would be prohibited under 
proposed Sec.  11.2(b)(2).
    Paragraph (b)(13) of Sec.  11.2 prohibits the practice of inserting 
between the horse's hoof and a pad any object or material other than 
acceptable hoof packing. We would redesignate this paragraph as 
paragraph (a)(5) and amend it to remove the reference to pads. 
Acceptable packing would continue to include pine tar, oakum, live 
rubber, sponge rubber, silicone, commercial hoof packing, or other 
material that does not create any pain on the frog, sole or any areas 
underneath the hoof. We also propose to prohibit acrylic and similar 
materials as hoof packing, as they can harden and cause pressure 
soring.
    Paragraph (b)(14) of Sec.  11.2 prohibits rocker-bars on the bottom 
surface of horseshoes which would cause, or could reasonably be 
expected to cause, an unsteadiness of stance in the horse with 
resulting muscle and tendon strain due to the horse's weight and 
balance being focused upon a small fulcrum point. We would retain the 
prohibitions in this paragraph, as well as the footnote allowing 
certain corrective devices for the purpose of correcting a lameness or 
pathological condition of the foot. We would redesignate paragraph 
(b)(14) as paragraph (a)(6).
    We would remove paragraphs (b)(15) through (17) of Sec.  11.2, 
which provide conditions for the use of hoof bands and action devices. 
Under the proposed regulations, all hoof bands and action devices would 
be prohibited at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
auction. Hoof bands are known to cause pressure on the wall of the hoof 
and overtightening of the bands has been difficult to monitor and 
detect.
    Paragraph (b)(18) of Sec.  11.2 currently prohibits any manner of 
shoeing or trimming a horse's hoof that will cause

[[Page 49118]]

suffering, pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when the animal 
is walking, trotting, or otherwise moving.
    We propose to redesignate paragraph as (b)(18) as (a)(7) and amend 
it by adding prohibitions on paring out the frog and intentional 
bruising of the hoof, and adding that horses showing any other 
indications of pressure shoeing are considered sore and subject to all 
the prohibitions in the Act. These practices can cause soring but are 
not specifically covered in the current regulations.
    Paragraph (b)(19) of Sec.  11.2 currently prohibits lead or other 
weights to be attached to the outside of the hoof wall, the outside 
surface of the horseshoe, or any portion of the pad except the bottom 
surface within the horseshoe. It also states that pads may not be 
hollowed out for the purpose of inserting or affixing weights, and 
weights may not extend below the bearing surface of the shoe. Paragraph 
(b)(19) also prohibits hollow shoes or artificial extensions filled 
with mercury or similar substances.
    We propose to redesignate paragraph (b)(19) of Sec.  11.2 as 
paragraph (a)(8) and remove references to pads in this paragraph. As we 
explain above, their use would be prohibited under the proposed 
regulations at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
auction. We would also remove the exception that allows the practice of 
adding weights to the bottom surface within the horseshoe because we 
have determined that such weights can be used in ways that can cause 
soring.
    Paragraph (c) of Sec.  11.2 currently prohibits application of 
substances to the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking 
Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed while being shown, exhibited, or 
offered for sale at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
auction except lubricants such as glycerine, petrolatum, and mineral 
oil, or mixtures thereof.
    Paragraph (c)(1) currently requires that the management agree to 
furnish all of the lubricants permitted to be applied to horses as 
noted above and to maintain control over them during their use at the 
event. Paragraph (c)(2) states that these lubricants can only be 
applied after the horse has been inspected by management or by a DQP 
and only under the supervision of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction management. Paragraph (c)(3) requires that management make 
lubricants available to Department personnel for inspection and 
sampling as deemed necessary.
    We would redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) and revise it 
to prohibit all substances, including lubricants, on the limbs of any 
Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed while being 
shown, exhibited, or offered for sale at any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction. This prohibition would apply to 
any and all horses present on the grounds of a horse show, exhibition, 
sale or auction. We are proposing these changes because, as we explain 
above, our experience in enforcing the Act has shown that a wide range 
of foreign substances have historically been applied to the legs and 
pasterns of gaited horses to induce soreness. Numbing substances are 
also applied to a sored horse to temporarily mask the pain of being 
palpated during inspection.
    We would also remove paragraphs (c)(1) through (3). These 
paragraphs address provisions for lubricants, which are typically used 
to reduce the friction of action devices. However, as we propose to 
prohibit all action devices there is no longer a need for such 
lubricants.
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  11.2 provides specific requirements for rest 
periods during horse show and horse exhibition workouts or performances 
for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related 
breeds and working exhibitions for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses, 
Racking Horses, and related breeds at horse sales or horse auctions. We 
would retain these requirements in a revised paragraph (c).
    Paragraph (e) of Sec.  current 11.2 prohibits persons from failing 
to provide information or providing false or misleading information 
when such information is required by the Act or regulations or 
requested by APHIS representatives. This provision applies to any 
custodian of any horse shown, exhibited, sold, auctioned, or entered 
for any of these purposes.
    We would move this provision from Sec.  11.2 to revised Sec.  11.4, 
as this section would specifically include requirements for providing 
information about the horse.
Scar Rule
    The scar rule applies to all horses born on or after October 1, 
1975. Horses that do not meet the scar rule criteria are considered to 
be sore and are subject to all prohibitions of the Act.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  11.3 states that the anterior and anterior-
lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor surface) are required 
to be free of bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological 
evidence of inflammation, and, other bilateral evidence of abuse 
indicative of soring including, but not limited to, excessive loss of 
hair.
    Paragraph (b) states that the posterior surfaces of the pasterns 
(flexor surface), including the sulcus or ``pocket'' may show bilateral 
areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free 
of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or 
other evidence of inflammation.
    We intend to retain the current scar rule provisions in the 
regulations.
Providing Required Information
    Section 11.4, ``Inspection and detention of horses,'' lists the 
inspection and detention requirements that custodians of a horse must 
meet upon request by an APHIS representative. We would revise Sec.  
11.4 by moving the inspection and detention requirements to a revised 
Sec.  11.5 and amending those requirements to reflect changes made to 
other sections. We would also change the section heading of revised 
Sec.  11.4 to ``Providing required information'' and add to that 
section the provision regarding failure to provide information or 
providing false information currently in Sec.  11.2(e). This provision 
prohibits an individual from refusing to provide information or 
providing false or misleading information when such information is 
required by the Act or regulations or requested by inspectors or APHIS 
representatives. It applies to any custodian of any horse shown, 
exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction.
Inspection and Detention of Horses: Responsible Parties
    Section 11.5 currently includes the requirement that show 
management and custodians of horses at any horse show, exhibition, 
auction, or sale must provide access for APHIS representatives and DQPs 
to visually and physically inspect horses and records.
    We would move the access requirements for show management in 
current Sec.  11.5(a) to proposed Sec.  11.9 so that all such 
requirements for show management are together in one section. We would 
also move horse inspection and detention requirements for custodians of 
horses from current Sec.  11.4 into revised Sec.  11.5 and retain the 
access requirements pertaining to custodians of horses currently in 
Sec.  11.5 so that all such requirements for these persons relating to 
access, inspection, and detention are located in one section. Revised 
Sec.  11.5 would be retitled ``Inspection and detention of horses; 
responsible parties.''
    We would combine the first sentence of current Sec.  11.5(b)(1) and 
the second through last sentences of current Sec.  11.4(a) to create 
paragraph (a) of revised Sec.  11.5. These sentences contain

[[Page 49119]]

inspection requirements for custodians of horses at horse shows, 
exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
    Paragraph (b) of revised Sec.  11.5 would be drawn from current 
Sec.  11.5(b)(2), which requires that the custodian of a horse promptly 
present it for inspection upon notification by any APHIS representative 
or authorized inspector to determine compliance with the Act and 
regulations.
    Paragraph (c) of revised Sec.  11.5 would state that no objects or 
tack other than a halter is to be placed on a horse during inspection. 
We would add this requirement because other objects can be used to 
train a sored horse to show no visible reaction to pain when its hooves 
and limbs are palpated during inspection.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted in the OIG report (see footnote 6), such 
distractions are part of the practice of stewarding, in which sored 
horses are forced to stand still for inspection even if they are in 
pain. Techniques generally involve a stable employee palpating the 
horse's sored front limbs; if the horse flinches from the pain of 
soring, another employee injures the horse by hitting it in the 
head, using a cigarette to burn its tongue, or other painful 
methods. By associating certain objects with infliction of these 
methods, the horse eventually learns to stand still for the lesser 
pain of inspection. To cite one instance of stewarding, Chris Zahnd 
was the owner and operator of Swingin' Gate Stables, located in 
Trinity, Alabama, and trained, boarded, and showed Tennessee Walking 
Horses. On July 4, 2009, at the Woodbury Lions Club Horse Show, a 
horse trained and stabled by Zahnd was discovered to be wearing a 
nerve cord--in this case, a plastic zip tie that distractingly 
stimulated the horse's gums--in its mouth and was determined to be 
bilaterally sore by an inspector. At a plea hearing, Zahnd admitted 
to soring violations prohibited by the Horse Protection Act: http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/tnm/pressReleases/2011/12-9-11.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With minor changes, the content we would include in paragraphs (d) 
through (k) of revised Sec.  11.5 would be drawn from the content in 
current Sec.  11.4(b) through Sec.  11.4(i), which list horse 
inspection and detention requirements pertaining to custodians of 
horses subject to inspection.
    Paragraph (f) of current Sec.  11.4 states that it is APHIS' policy 
to inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other custodian of any 
horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations 
of the alleged violation before the horse is released by an APHIS 
representative. We would add language to indicate that the APHIS 
representative would inform the custodian of a horse of the alleged 
violation and move the content to paragraph (h) of revised Sec.  11.5.
    We would move the contents of paragraphs (e)(2) and (h)(1) and (2) 
of current Sec.  11.4 to new paragraphs (g)(2) and (j)(1) and (2) of 
revised Sec.  11.5, respectively, in order to draw together similar 
inspection and detention requirements. We would also replace the term 
``APHIS Show Veterinarian'' with ``APHIS representative'' wherever it 
occurs in those paragraphs for the reasons explained above under 
``Definitions.''
Consolidation of Inspection Space and Facility Requirements
    Section 11.6 currently contains horse inspection space and facility 
requirements for management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction. Under the current requirements, management must provide 
sufficient space and facilities for inspectors and APHIS 
representatives to perform their duties under the Act and regulations. 
These requirements include ensuring that inspectors and APHIS 
representatives who inspect horses are provided with a safe area (for 
example, a well-defined inspection area where inspectors are free from 
potential harm) to conduct inspections and protection from the 
elements, and that there are separate waiting areas for horses awaiting 
inspection and horses that the inspector determines should be detained.
    In order to consolidate management-specific inspection space and 
facility requirements, we propose moving these requirements from 
current Sec.  11.6 to proposed Sec.  11.9, ``Management 
responsibilities; access, space, and facilities.''
Training and Licensing of DQPs \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As noted in footnote 1, Designated Qualified Person (DQP) 
would be changed to Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) under the 
proposed regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DQPs conduct inspections of horses at shows, sales, auctions, and 
exhibitions under procedures set out in Sec.  11.21 of the regulations. 
That section provides instructions on how to visually and physically 
detect and diagnose soring in horses, requires the inspecting DQP to 
ensure that no devices and methods used on the horse are prohibited 
under Sec.  11.2, and sets out the conditions under which horses must 
be inspected. Under the current DQP program, DQPs are certified, hired, 
paid, and, if necessary, disciplined by HIOs. APHIS certifies HIOs 
subject to their meeting the requirements under Sec.  11.7 of the 
regulations for licensing and training, recordkeeping and reporting, 
and standards of conduct, and monitors them for compliance with these 
requirements.
    As we have noted, the OIG report cited conflicts of interest 
between DQPs, the HIOs that maintain training and licensing programs, 
and management of horse shows and exhibitions that affiliate with the 
HIOs. The report's findings and our own experience with the DQP program 
indicate that the current program facilitates conflicts of interest 
between HIOs and DQPs that contribute to the persistence of soring in 
the gaited horse industry. DQPs under HIO supervision have a long 
history of allowing horses to pass inspection despite indicators of 
soring. The report recommended that APHIS undertake training and 
licensing of horse inspectors in order to ensure that inspection 
techniques are correctly and consistently applied by inspectors working 
independently of the horse industry.
    Inspection data compiled by APHIS suggests that inadequate 
inspections by DQP at HPA-covered events has resulted in underreporting 
of sored horses when APHIS inspectors are not in attendance. This is 
consistent with the findings of the 2010 OIG report on the horse 
protection program, which noted that, on average, DQPs issued 49 
percent of their total violations at the small number of shows at which 
APHIS was also present.\12\ In the data set OIG reviewed, OIG found 
APHIS attended 108 shows out of 1,607 shows where DQPs provided 
inspection services. With respect to inspection findings, OIG found 
that DQPs reported 1,409 alleged HPA violations at the 108 shows where 
APHIS was also present, compared to 1,620 alleged HPA violations at the 
1,499 shows where APHIS was not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnote 6. OIG's data review and table is found on 
page 11 of the audit report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows inspection data compiled by APHIS from fiscal years 
(FY) 2010 to 2015. During this period, APHIS attended about 18 percent 
of all HPA-covered events featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking 
Horses, or related breeds at which horse industry DQPs conducted 
inspections. The data indicates that while APHIS attended only a 
fraction of the events at which DQPs were retained to inspect horses, 
APHIS consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance based on 
Veterinary Medical Officer inspection findings. In FY 2015, for 
example, APHIS detected 509 instances of noncompliance with the HPA at 
the 62 shows APHIS attended. Of the 278 shows DQPs attended during the 
same time frame, DQPs detected just 228 instances of noncompliance with 
the HPA. From FY 2010 through FY 2015, the statistics show DQPs 
identify noncompliance at a lower rate compared to APHIS Veterinary 
Medical Officers. While the trend in the number of noncompliance 
detected by DQPs has

[[Page 49120]]

steadily fallen between FY 2010 and FY 2015, APHIS' detection of 
noncompliance has remained relatively stable. This further suggests 
some of the potential deficiencies of the existing DQP program.

                                              Table 1--HPA-Covered Events Inspection Data From FY 2010-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Foreign
                                                                                                                                            substance
                                                                 Shows attended     Noncompliance    Shows attended     Noncompliance        testing
                              FY                                    by APHIS         detected by         by DQPs      detected by DQPs      (positive
                                                                                        APHIS                                            finding/number
                                                                                                                                             tested)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2015.......................................................                62               509               278               228           500/768
FY 2014.......................................................                61               579               365               355           107/203
FY 2013.......................................................                74               409               365               529           195/314
FY 2012.......................................................               103               688               427               790           309/478
FY 2011.......................................................                82               672               461              1131           184/189
FY 2010.......................................................                54               498               373              1214           312/363
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we propose to eliminate the existing DQP program and replace 
it with a program of independent, APHIS-licensed and trained inspectors 
(see section below titled ``Training and Licensing of DQPs''), we also 
propose to reduce instances of soring by addressing the means by which 
horses are sored.
    The regulations currently allow the use of a chain or other action 
device on each limb of a horse if the device weighs 6 ounces or less. 
In prior rulemakings, APHIS has received a range of comments from 
members of the gaited horse industry, veterinary professional 
organizations, animal advocates, and the general public regarding the 
purposes and effects of such devices, and whether there are minimum 
weights below which such devices will not cause lesions that constitute 
soring. We have observed, however, from our direct experience in 
enforcing the Act and regulations over many years that chains, rollers, 
and similar devices placed on a horse's feet, when used in combination 
with prohibited foreign substances applied to the pasterns of a horse, 
can create lesions and inflammation that constitute soring. When such 
substances are used, we have diagnosed soring in horses that have worn 
chains under 6 ounces and other devices allowed in the current 
regulations. Although our experience enforcing the HPA indicates that 
soring occurs when action devices are used alone or in combination with 
prohibited foreign substances, we welcome public comment, supported 
with scientific data or other information, on whether action devices 
used alone or in combination with other training methods may result in 
soring.
    In table 1 above, the right column shows the number of horses 
tested by APHIS for prohibited foreign substances and the number of 
horses shown to be positive for such substances from FY 2010 through 
2015. In FY 2015, for example, 500 horses were positive out of 768 
tested, and over the 5 year period the average rate of positives was 69 
percent. All of the horses testing positive for foreign substances wore 
action devices while being shown or exhibited. Prohibited foreign 
substances applied to these horses include masking and numbing agents 
that temporarily block the pain of soring so inspectors cannot detect 
pain upon inspection.
    A study \13\ conducted at the Auburn University School of 
Veterinary Medicine from 1978 to 1982 (``the Auburn study'') suggests a 
strong relationship between soring and the combined use of action 
devices and substances. Moreover, our observations from over three 
decades of administering and enforcing the Act indicate that soring 
does occur with the use of irritating foreign substances and 6 ounce 
action devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Thermography in Diagnosis of Inflammatory Processes in 
Horses in Response to Various Chemical and Physical Factors: Summary 
of the Research from September 1978 to December 1982. Submitted to 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture by Dr. Ram C. Purohit, Associate 
Professor, Department of Large Animal Surgery and Medicine, School 
of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the foreign substances data in table 1, averaged 
over a 6 year period, indicate that 71 percent of substance samples 
taken from the limbs of horses tested positive for prohibited 
substances. These substances include mustard oil and detergents, both 
of which, as demonstrated in the Auburn study, resulted in soring. 
Prohibited substances also included local anesthetic agents such as 
benzocaine and lidocaine to deter detection of soring upon evaluation, 
as well as dyes and paints to cover lesions that would indicate 
noncompliance with the scar rule.
    Of the alleged show violations found from FY 2010 through 2015 with 
APHIS representatives present, many of these alleged violations 
involved the failure to comply with the scar rule. The high number of 
horses found noncompliant with the scar rule that also tested positive 
for foreign substances suggests that the use of 6 ounce action devices 
currently allowed under the regulations are resulting in soring and 
that horses continue to endure this abusive and cruel practice.
    Our experience at horse shows and exhibitions also indicates that 
soring has continued to occur through the use of hoof pads (also 
referred to as performance packages). Research undertaken in the Auburn 
study indicated that raising a horse's heels through the use of pads 
alone resulted in swollen flexor tendons and signs of inflammation. 
About 90 percent of the alleged violations documented at shows from FY 
2010 through 2015 involved horses wearing pads. Pads used in 
performance packages can conceal objects that produce pain or be 
designed to cause the horse's hoof to strike the ground at an abnormal 
angle in order to produce pain on stepping, resulting in an exaggerated 
gait.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On April 26, 2011, a Federal grand jury in Chattanooga, TN 
returned a 34-count indictment against Barney Davis, charging him 
with violations of the Horse Protection Act and related financial 
crimes because he screwed bolts and other hard objects against the 
soles of horse's hoofs to produce pain to alter the gait of a horse. 
As part of his sentencing, Davis was ordered to help produce an 
educational video (https://youtu.be/vZTIbwaibOE) showing soring 
methods and demonstrating how inspectors can better detect sored 
horses. In the video, Davis described mechanical devices and 
chemical irritants used to sore horses and showed examples of 
chains, bolts, blocks, and eight-pound tungsten shoes used to cause 
a gaited horse to adopt an exaggerated gait for the show ring. Davis 
stressed the pervasiveness of soring in the gaited horse industry 
and testified that horses ``have got to be sored to walk,'' 
referring to the exaggerated gait displayed in the show ring. See 
http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/tne/news/2011/November/110811%20Horse%20Soring%20Guilty%20Plea.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, because the existing regulatory structure, which 
requires HIOs to hire and train inspectors to identify sore horses at 
industry-sponsored events, has not been effective in eliminating the 
practice of soring, we propose to revise the regulations so that APHIS 
assumes all regulatory responsibility for training and licensing

[[Page 49121]]

of third-party inspectors. We would include these regulations in a 
revised Sec.  11.6, which we propose to title as ``Training and 
licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs).'' As HIOs would no 
longer be responsible for training and licensing inspectors and 
enforcing penalties, we would relieve HIOs of all regulatory burdens 
and requirements assigned to them in the regulations.
    We would add an introductory paragraph to revised Sec.  11.6. That 
paragraph would state that APHIS will train and license HPIs and 
reiterate the current policy in Sec.  11.7(a) that allows the 
management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse 
auction to engage inspectors holding a valid, current license under 
section 4 of the Act, and to appoint and delegate authority to 
inspectors to detect or diagnose horses that are sore or to otherwise 
inspect horses and records for the purposes of determining compliance 
with the Act. While HPIs would be bound by APHIS requirements regarding 
his or her duties and responsibilities, HPIs would not be employed or 
reimbursed by APHIS for their inspections but would contract directly 
with show management. The introductory paragraph would state that show 
management may engage one or more HPIs from the list of APHIS trained 
and licensed HPIs by contacting them directly. A list of licensed HPIs 
would be made available on the APHIS Horse Protection Program Web site.
    We would remove the statement in paragraph Sec.  11.7(a)(1)(iii) 
that accredited Doctors of Veterinary Medicine who meet these 
qualifications ``may be licensed as DQPs by a horse industry 
organization or association whose DQP program has been certified by the 
Department under this part without undergoing the formal training 
requirements set forth in this section.'' APHIS would be the entity 
licensing qualified veterinarians and veterinary technicians as 
inspectors under the revised regulations.
    We would also remove the provision in current Sec.  11.7(a)(2) that 
farriers, horse trainers, and other knowledgeable horsemen can be 
qualified as DQPs if their past experience and training qualifies them 
for positions as horse industry organization or association stewards or 
judges (or their equivalent) and if they have been formally trained and 
licensed as DQPs by a horse industry organization or association. 
Instead, we would state in paragraph (a) of revised Sec.  11.6 that 
only veterinarians and veterinary technicians may be licensed as HPIs. 
We are making this change to ensure that inspectors have the 
professional education, working knowledge, technical and practical 
experience, and training necessary to inspect horses properly under the 
Act and regulations.
    In the case of veterinarians, paragraph (a)(1) would state that 
they would need to have extensive knowledge and experience of equine 
husbandry and science defined as understanding the anatomy, selection, 
breeding, care, and maintenance of horses, and applicable principles of 
equine science, welfare, care, and veterinary health and be eligible to 
be licensed as HPIs under paragraph (b) of Sec.  11.6. They would also 
have to be accredited in any State by the United States Department of 
Agriculture under 9 CFR part 161 and be: Members of the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners, or large animal practitioners with 
substantial equine experience, or knowledgeable in the area of equine 
soring and soring practices (for example, Doctors of Veterinary 
Medicine with a small animal practice with sufficient knowledge of 
horses, or Doctors of Veterinary Medicine who teach equine-related 
subjects in an accredited college or school of veterinary medicine).
    Paragraph (a)(2) would state that veterinary technicians with 
degrees awarded by educational programs accredited by the American 
Veterinary Medical Association Committee on Veterinary Technician 
Education and Activities could also be licensed as HPIs if they possess 
knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science and are 
eligible to be licensed as HPIs under the requirements in paragraph (b) 
of Sec.  11.6.
    Paragraph (b) of current Sec.  11.7 provides certification 
requirements for DQP programs maintained by horse industry 
organizations or associations. As the task of training and licensing 
inspectors in such programs would shift to APHIS under the proposed 
regulations, these program requirements would be removed.
    Paragraph (c)(4) of current Sec.  11.7 states that each horse 
industry organization or association receiving Department certification 
for the training and licensing of DQPs under the Act shall not license 
any person as a DQP if such person has been found in violation of the 
Act or regulations occurring after July 13, 1976, (the date of 
enactment of the last major statutory change to the HPA) or paid any 
fine or civil penalty in settlement of any proceeding regarding a 
violation of the Act or regulations occurring after that date, for a 
period of at least 2 years following the first violation and at least 5 
years following any subsequent violation.
    We would include a similar provision in paragraph (b)(1) of revised 
Sec.  11.6 stating that APHIS will not license any person as a HPI if 
that person has been convicted or found to have violated any provision 
of the Act or the regulations in 9 CFR part 11 occurring after July 13, 
1976, or has been assessed any fine or civil penalty, or has been the 
subject of a disqualification order in any proceeding involving an 
alleged violation of the Act or regulations occurring after July 13, 
1976. However, in order to ensure that any person who has been found in 
violation of the Act or has been the subject of an order assessing a 
fine or civil penalty or imposing a disqualification period to resolve 
alleged violations of the Act is not granted a license to inspect 
horses, we would not include the current 2- and 5-year limitations for 
violators. In other words, a person who has been found in violation of 
the Act or subject to an order assessing a fine or civil penalty or 
imposing a disqualification period would not be allowed to be a HPI.
    We would include in paragraph (b)(2) of revised Sec.  11.6 a 
restriction against licensing any person as a HPI if that person, any 
members of that person's immediate family, or that person's employer 
participates in the showing of horses or acts as a judge, a farrier, or 
as show management involving any Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking 
Horses, or related breeds, or as determined by the Administrator of 
APHIS.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would state that APHIS will not license 
any person as a HPI if that person has been disqualified by the 
Secretary of Agriculture from making detection, diagnosis, or 
inspection for the purpose of enforcing the Act. This restriction is 
adapted from current paragraph (c)(6) of Sec.  11.7.
    Paragraph (b)(4) of revised Sec.  11.6 would contain the 
restriction that APHIS will not license any person as a HPI if the 
professional integrity, reputation, honesty, practices, and reliability 
of the person do not support a conclusion that the applicant is fit to 
carry out the duties of a HPI. The information that APHIS would 
consider in reaching a conclusion would include: Criminal conviction 
records; official records of the person's actions while participating 
in Federal, State, or local veterinary programs; judicial 
determinations in any type of litigation, and any other evidence that 
reflects on the integrity, reputation, honesty, practices, and 
reliability of the person.

[[Page 49122]]

    Paragraph (c) of current Sec.  11.7 lists requirements that must be 
met by each HIO that receives APHIS certification for training and 
licensing DQPs. We would remove these requirements from the 
regulations, as HIOs will no longer train and license inspectors or be 
certified by APHIS.
    Under paragraph (c)(1) of revised Sec.  11.6, persons wishing to 
become a HPI would have to submit an application to APHIS and show that 
they satisfy the requirements we propose in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
revised Sec.  11.6. If accepted, HPI candidates would have to complete 
a formal training program administered by APHIS that includes 
instruction on: The anatomy and physiology of the limbs of a horse; the 
Act and the regulations; the history of soring and procedures necessary 
to detect soring; practical instruction using live horses; HPI 
standards of conduct, and recordkeeping requirements and procedures. 
Training would be delivered regionally and utilize distance learning 
whenever possible to minimize expenses for attendees and APHIS.
    Once the HPI candidate successfully completes the formal training 
program required in proposed paragraph (c)(1) and passes a written 
examination, proposed paragraph (c)(2) provides that he or she would be 
granted a license for 1 year. Licenses would terminate after 1 year and 
all HPIs would be required to reapply if they wish to be licensed 
another year.
    Paragraph (d) of Sec.  11.7 currently provides requirements to be 
met by DQPs and HIOs. We would remove these requirements from the 
regulations and propose inspector requirements in a revised paragraph 
Sec.  11.6(d), titled ``Requirements to be met by HPIs.'' A description 
of the inspector requirements we propose in Sec.  11.6(d) follows our 
summary of current Sec.  11.7(d).
    Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  11.7 currently requires that DQPs keep 
and maintain information and records concerning any horse which the DQP 
recommends be excused for any reason from being shown, exhibited, sold 
or auctioned, in a uniform format required by the horse industry 
organization or association that has licensed the DQP. This information 
includes: The name and address of the horse owner, exhibitor, and 
trainer; the horse's exhibit, sale, or auction tag number; the date and 
time the horse was inspected; a detailed description of all of the 
DQP's findings and the nature of the alleged violation, or other reason 
for prohibiting the horse; name, age, sex, color, and markings of the 
horse, and the name of the show manager or other management 
representative notified by the DQP that such horse should be excused, 
and whether such manager or management representative excused such 
horse.
    Paragraph (d)(2) of current Sec.  11.7 requires that the DQP inform 
the custodian of each horse alleged to be in violation of the Act or 
its regulations, or excused for any other reason, of such action and 
the specific reasons for the action.
    In paragraph (d)(3) of current Sec.  11.7, each horse industry 
organization or association having a Department certified DQP program 
is currently required to submit a report to the Department that 
includes information about the identity of all horse shows, horse 
exhibitions, horse sales, or horse auctions that have retained the 
services of DQPs licensed by the organization or association during the 
month covered by the report.
    In paragraph (d)(4) of current Sec.  11.7, each horse industry 
organization or association having a Department certified DQP program 
has to provide to the trainer and owner of each horse allegedly in 
violation of the Act, or otherwise excused for any reason, the name and 
date of the show, exhibition, sale, or auction, as well as the name of 
the horse and the reason why the horse was excused or alleged to be in 
violation of the Act or its regulations.
    Paragraph (d)(5) of current Sec.  11.7 states that each horse 
industry organization or association having a Department certified DQP 
program has to provide its licensed DQPs with a current list of all 
persons that have been disqualified by order of the Secretary from 
showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show, 
exhibition, sale, or auction.
    Under our proposed changes, APHIS would make this list of 
disqualified persons available to HPIs and show management of any horse 
show, sale, exhibition, and auction.
    Paragraph (d)(6) of current Sec.  11.7 states that each horse 
industry organization or association having a Department certified DQP 
program must develop and provide a continuing education program with 
not less than 4 hours of instruction per year to each licensed DQP.
    As we propose that APHIS would develop and provide an education 
program for HPIs, we would remove this particular requirement from the 
proposed regulations.
    In paragraph (d)(7) of current Sec.  11.7, each HIO having a 
Department certified DQP program must promulgate standards of conduct 
for its DQPs and provide administrative procedures for initiating, 
maintaining, and enforcing such standards, including the causes for and 
methods to be utilized for canceling the license of any DQP.
    We are removing these and all other HIO-related requirements from 
the regulations because HIOs would no longer be training or licensing 
inspectors. As indicated in proposed Sec.  11.6(c)(1), APHIS would 
provide instruction on standards of conduct for HPIs.
    In proposed paragraph (d)(1) of revised Sec.  11.6, drawn from 
current Sec.  11.7(d)(1), we would require that any licensed HPI 
appointed and retained by the management of a horse show, exhibition, 
sale, or auction to inspect horses for the purpose of determining 
compliance with the Act and regulations must collect and maintain the 
following information and records concerning any horse which the HPI 
recommends be prohibited for any reason from such horse show, 
exhibition, sale or auction, from being shown, exhibited, sold, or 
auctioned: Names and addresses, including street address or post office 
box number and ZIP Code, of the show and show manager, horse owner, 
trainer, farrier, exhibitor; exhibitor number and class number, or the 
sale or auction tag number of the horse; date and time of inspection; 
detailed description of all of the HPI's findings and the nature of the 
alleged violation, or other reason from prohibiting the horse, 
including the HPI's statement regarding the evidence or facts upon 
which the HPI recommended that show management disqualify a horse; 
name, registration number (if the horse is registered), age, sex, 
color, and markings of the horse; and the name or names of the show 
manager or other management representative notified by the HPI that 
such horse should be prohibited from participating and whether or not 
such show management prohibited such horse.
    In proposed paragraph (d)(2) of revised Sec.  11.6, drawn from 
current Sec.  11.7(d)(2),we would require that copies of records be 
submitted by the HPI to show management and to APHIS within 72 hours of 
conclusion of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
    Paragraph (d)(3) of revised Sec.  11.6 would require that the HPI, 
after completing the inspection, inform the custodian of each horse 
found noncompliant with the Act or its regulations, or prohibited for 
any other reason, of such action and the specific reasons for such 
action. The HPI would collect the information related to the alleged 
violation from the custodian.
    Paragraph (d)(4) of revised Sec.  11.6 would require that the HPI 
immediately

[[Page 49123]]

inform show management of each case regarding the custodian of any 
horse that is found to be noncompliant with the Act or its regulations.
    Paragraph (e) of current Sec.  11.7 states that the management of 
any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction must not 
appoint any person to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to 
otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of enforcing the Act, if that 
person: Does not hold a valid, current DQP license issued by a horse 
industry organization or association having a DQP program certified by 
the Department; has had his DQP license canceled by the licensing 
organization or association; is disqualified by the Secretary from 
performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act, after 
notice and opportunity for a hearing, when the Secretary finds that 
such person is unfit to perform such diagnosis, detection, or 
inspection because he has failed to perform his duties in accordance 
with the Act or regulations; or because he has been convicted of a 
violation of any provision of the Act or regulations occurring after 
July 13, 1976, or has paid any fine or civil penalty in settlement of 
any proceeding regarding a violation of the Act or regulations 
occurring after July 13, 1976. In accordance with proposed Sec.  
11.10(c)(1), persons appointed by management to inspect horses to 
detect or diagnose indications of soring would be required to hold a 
valid, current license issued by APHIS for that purpose.
    In current paragraph (f) of Sec.  11.7, each HIO or association 
having a DQP program certified by the Department must issue a written 
warning to any DQP whom it has licensed who violates the rules, 
regulations, by-laws, or standards of conduct promulgated by such HIO 
or association under Sec.  11.7, who fails to follow the procedures in 
Sec.  11.21, or who otherwise carries out his duties and 
responsibilities in a less than satisfactory manner. The HIO must also 
cancel the license of any DQP after a second violation. In addition, 
each HIO or association having a Department certified DQP program must 
cancel the license of any DQP licensed under its program if that person 
has been convicted of a violation of the Act or the regulations in 9 
CFR part 11 occurring after July 13, 1976, or paid any fine or civil 
penalty in any proceeding in which a violation of the Act or 
regulations was found in a final unappealable decision occurring after 
July 13, 1976.
    As HIOs would no longer administer inspector training and licensing 
under our proposal, we would remove the provisions in Sec.  11.7(f) 
from the regulations. Instead, we would replace them with provisions 
for APHIS to issue warnings to HPIs and deny or revoke HPI licenses.
    Under paragraph (e) of proposed Sec.  11.6, APHIS may deny or 
revoke a license for any of the reasons outlined in Sec.  11.6(b), and 
will revoke the license of any HPI who fails to follow the inspection 
procedures set forth in Sec.  11.12, or who otherwise carries out his 
or her duties and responsibilities in a less than satisfactory manner. 
Upon denial or revocation of a license, the applicant or HPI may appeal 
the revocation to the Administrator within 30 days from the date of 
such decision, and the Administrator would make a final determination 
in the matter. If the Administrator upholds the denial or revocation of 
the license, the applicant or HPI would be given notice and opportunity 
for a hearing. Hearings will be in accordance with the Uniform Rules of 
Practice for the Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR 1.130 et seq. The 
license denial shall remain in effect until the final legal decision 
has been rendered.
    Paragraph (g) of current Sec.  11.7 states that any HIO or 
association having a Department certified DQP program that has not 
received Department certification of the inspection procedures provided 
for in Sec.  11.7(b)(6), or that otherwise fails to comply with the 
requirements contained in part 11, may have certification of its DQP 
program revoked, unless upon written notification from the Department 
of failure to comply with the requirements in this section, the 
organization or association takes immediate action to rectify such 
failure and takes appropriate steps to prevent a recurrence of such 
noncompliance within the time period specified in the Department 
notification, or otherwise adequately explains such failure to comply 
to the satisfaction of the Department.
    We would remove the requirements in Sec.  11.7(g), as HIOs would no 
longer be administering inspector training and licensing programs. We 
would add provisions in paragraph (f) of revised Sec.  11.6 for the 
status of persons who have been licensed as inspectors prior to the 
effective date of this rule. Inspectors licensed as DQPs prior to the 
effective date of this rulemaking would no longer be allowed to perform 
inspection duties under that license after the effective date. DQPs 
seeking to become inspectors after the effective date of this 
rulemaking would need to apply for a license and fulfill all HPI 
eligibility requirements included in Sec.  11.6.
HIO Certification and Responsibilities
    Current Sec. Sec.  11.7, 11.23, and 11.41 contain requirements for 
HIOs interested in applying for Department certification of a DQP 
training program and maintaining the program in good standing. As 
stated above, we propose to remove from the regulations all regulatory 
requirements for HIOs. HIOs would no longer be subject to any of the 
regulations pertaining to them in part 11, nor would they have the 
regulatory responsibility to train or license HPIs or enforce 
penalties. Under the proposed changes, HIOs could still affiliate with 
shows, auctions, and other horse-centered events, train judges, 
maintain registries, and engage in other activities that promote the 
horse industry.
Management Responsibilities
Access, Space, and Facilities
    In proposed Sec.  11.9, we would consolidate and revise the show 
management responsibilities pertaining to inspector access, space, and 
facilities currently in Sec. Sec.  11.5, 11.6, and 11.20.
    Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.  11.9 would include requirements 
regarding access to premises for inspection of horses and records. In 
proposed Sec.  11.9(a)(1), we would include the requirement from 
current Sec.  11.5(a)(1) that the management of any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction must, without fee, charge, 
assessment, or other compensation, provide authorized HPIs and APHIS 
representatives with unlimited and unrestricted access to the 
grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and all other 
areas of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. This requirement 
includes any adjacent areas under their direction, control, or 
supervision for the purpose of inspecting any horses, or any records 
required to be kept by regulation or otherwise maintained.
    In paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Sec.  11.9, drawn from current 
Sec.  11.5(a)(2), we would require that the management of any horse 
show, exhibition, or sale or auction must, without fee, charge, 
assessment, or other compensation, provide authorized HPIs and APHIS 
representatives with an adequate, sufficient, safe, and accessible area 
for the visual inspection and observation of horses while such horses 
are competitively or otherwise performing at any horse show or 
exhibition. This requirement also applies while such horses are being 
sold or auctioned, or offered for sale or auction.
    In paragraph (b) of proposed Sec.  11.9, we would include space and 
facility requirements drawn from current Sec.  11.6

[[Page 49124]]

for the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. 
Management would be required to provide, without fee, charge, 
assessment, or other compensation, adequate, sufficient, safe and 
accessible space and facilities for authorized HPIs and APHIS 
representatives to carry out such duties under the Act and regulations 
whether or not management has received prior notification or otherwise 
knows that the show may be inspected by APHIS.
    In paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec.  11.9, drawn from paragraph 
(a) of current Sec.  11.6, we would require sufficient space in a 
convenient location to the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction 
arena, acceptable to authorized HPIs or APHIS representatives, in which 
horses may be physically, thermographically, or otherwise inspected for 
soring.
    In paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.  11.9, drawn from current 
Sec.  11.6(b), we would require that management provide protection from 
the elements of nature, such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, and wind for 
the inspection space. While current Sec.  11.6(b) requires such 
protection only if requested by an inspector or an APHIS 
representative, we would require it at every event as it may not be 
possible to perform accurate inspections under exposure to the 
elements, as well as to permit last minute or unannounced inspections.
    In paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Sec.  11.9, drawn from paragraph 
(c) of current Sec.  11.6, we would require that management maintain 
control of crowds or onlookers in order that authorized HPIs and APHIS 
representatives may carry out their duties safely and without 
interference. We are seeking public comment on instances in which it 
would it be necessary to hire security personnel to protect HPIs.
    Paragraph (b)(3)(i) of proposed Sec.  11.9 would require that 
management ensure that each horse in the designated inspection and 
warm-up areas be accompanied by no more than three individuals, 
including the trainer, rider, and the custodian. Official guests of 
show management, such as elected officials, legislators, and technical 
advisers would be allowed access to the designated inspection and warm-
up areas for limited periods of time at the discretion of show 
management and only with the concurrence of an authorized HPI or APHIS 
representative. Our experience has shown that people congregating in 
designated inspection and warm-up areas can impede the ability of 
inspectors and APHIS representatives to perform their duties, and could 
be used to attempt to intimidate the inspectors and/or APHIS 
representatives.
    Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of proposed Sec.  11.9 would require that 
management must not in any way influence show attendees to assault, 
resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with authorized HPIs 
or APHIS representatives. If management influences attendees in such a 
manner, HPIs and APHIS representatives would immediately stop 
conducting inspections at the event and document the events, which may 
result in a potential investigation or enforcement action against 
management.
    In proposed paragraph (b)(4), we would require that management 
provide an accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical 
power source for the inspection space if requested by an authorized HPI 
or APHIS representative. Paragraph (d) of Sec.  11.6 currently 
stipulates that this is a requirement only if electrical service is 
available. We would retain this requirement in the regulations. If 
electrical service is not available, management would be required to 
provide a portable electric generator as requested by the inspector of 
APHIS representatives.
    In proposed paragraph (b)(5), we would adopt the requirement from 
current Sec.  11.6(e) that management provide appropriate areas 
adjacent to the inspection area for designated horses to wait before 
and after inspection and an area to be used for detention of horses.
Operation of Horse Shows, Exhibitions, Sales, and Auctions
    We also propose to add a new Sec.  11.10 that contains management 
operating requirements for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and 
auctions. Our experience, which is corroborated by the OIG report, is 
that current operating requirements are insufficient to enforce 
prohibitions on persons who have been disqualified from participation 
in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. In proposing these 
management operating requirements, we intend to make it easier to 
identify persons who are disqualified from participating in regulated 
horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
    In paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec.  11.10, we would require that 
the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
auction involving Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related 
breeds notify the Administrator of the event at least 30 days before it 
begins. We would stipulate that notification may be made by mail, fax, 
or electronic means such as email, but that notification through 
electronic means is strongly preferred.\15\ Notification must include: 
The name and location of the show, exhibition, sale, or auction; the 
name and address of the manager; a phone number and email address (if 
available); the date or dates of the show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction; and a copy of the official horse show, horse exhibition, horse 
sale, or horse auction program, if any such program has been prepared. 
Notification would also have to include the names of the APHIS-licensed 
HPIs scheduled to perform inspections at the horse show, exhibition, 
sale, or auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Email notification may be sent to [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Sec.  11.10, we would require 
management to ensure that no action devices or substances prohibited 
under Sec.  11.2 are present in the warm-up area.
    We would require in paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Sec.  11.10 that 
management post the list of people who have been disqualified by USDA 
in a prominent place at the event. We would require in paragraph (a)(4) 
of proposed Sec.  11.10 that management check the people entering 
horses in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction against the list 
of people noted in paragraph (a)(3) who have been disqualified and 
prevent them from entering their horses if they are on the list.
    Finally, in paragraph (a)(5) of proposed Sec.  11.10, we would 
require that management ensure that all horses entered in the horse 
show, exhibition, sale, or auction be properly identified by one of the 
following methods: A description sufficient to identify the individual 
equine, as determined by APHIS, to include name, age, breed, color, 
gender, distinctive markings, and unique and permanent forms of 
identification when present (e.g., brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, or 
blemishes); electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/
11785; \16\ an equine passport issued by a State government and 
accepted in the government of the State in which the horse show, 
exhibition, sale, or auction will occur; or digital photographs 
sufficient to identify the individual equine, as determined by an 
authorized HPI or an APHIS representative. Additionally, if any such 
horses belong to a registry, the registry number and registry records 
would have to be provided to an authorized HPI and/or APHIS 
representative upon request. In addition, APHIS may add at its

[[Page 49125]]

discretion additional forms of identification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An international standard regulating the radio frequency 
identification (RFID) of animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in current Sec.  11.20, the management of a horse 
show, exhibition, sale or auction is not required to designate and 
appoint inspectors to conduct inspections. However, under the 
requirements in paragraph (b) of proposed Sec.  11.10, which are 
similar to those currently in Sec.  11.20, management not using an 
inspector from the list of APHIS-trained and licensed inspectors would 
themselves be responsible for identifying and prohibiting any horses 
which are sore from participating or competing in any horse show, 
exhibition, sale, or auction. In the event that show management either 
does not hire inspectors or hires inspectors that are not licensed by 
APHIS, show management can be held liable for the failure to disqualify 
a sore horse from participating in an HPA-covered event. If they do 
choose to use APHIS-licensed inspectors, show management can only be 
found liable if they fail to disqualify a horse that an APHIS-licensed 
inspector or APHIS identifies as a sore horse and notifies show 
management. Horses entered in a sale or auction would have to be 
identified as sore prior to the sale or auction and prohibited from 
entering the ring. Sore horses that have been entered in a show or 
exhibition for the purpose of showing or exhibition would have to be 
identified and disqualified by management. Any horses found to be sore 
during participation in the show or exhibition would have to be 
prohibited from further participation prior to the tying of the class 
or the completion of the show or exhibition. Show management's failure 
to prohibit a horse from participating in any of these situations would 
result in an alleged violation of the Act and regulations.
    Under proposed Sec.  11.10(b)(2), copies of the records required 
under proposed Sec.  11.6(d)(1) would have to be collected and 
submitted by management to APHIS within 72 hours after the horse show, 
exhibition, sale, or auction is over. Proposed Sec.  11.10(b)(3) would 
contain the requirement that after completing inspection, management 
would notify the custodian of each horse that is noncompliant with the 
Act or regulations that the horse is disqualified from participating in 
any show, exhibition, sale or auction, or involved with any other 
action under the Act or its regulations along with the reasons for such 
action. Management would have to collect the information relating to 
the alleged violation from the custodian.
    In current Sec.  11.20, only a horse tied first in each Tennessee 
Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed class or event at any 
horse show or exhibition has to be inspected after being shown or 
exhibited to determine if such horse is in compliance with the Act or 
regulations. We would add this inspection requirement to proposed Sec.  
11.10(b) and amend it to state that any horse placing first, second, or 
third, and any other horses indicated by a HPI or APHIS representative 
in each Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed class 
or event at any horse show or exhibition, will have to be inspected 
after being shown or exhibited to determine if such horses are 
compliant with the Act or regulations. We are proposing this change to 
improve compliance with the Horse Protection regulations.
    At horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, we would require 
in proposed Sec.  11.10(c)(1) that management designate and appoint a 
minimum of two HPIs holding valid, current licenses issued by APHIS. 
This requirement is drawn from Sec.  11.20(c), which requires that 
management appoint and designate at least two inspectors when more than 
150 horses are entered. However, we would amend this requirement to 
require that management appoint two HPIs when 150 or fewer horses are 
entered in an event and more than two HPIs when more than 150 horses 
are entered. In addition, we would add in proposed Sec.  11.10(c)(1) 
the requirement that management make a farrier available to assist with 
inspections at every horse show, exhibition, sale, and auction.
    Under proposed Sec.  11.10(c)(2), management would have to accord 
HPIs access to all records and areas of the grounds of a show, 
exhibition, sale, or auction and accord the same right to inspect 
horses and records as is accorded to any APHIS representative under the 
regulations. Further, management would be prohibited from taking any 
action which would interfere with or influence a HPI while carrying out 
his or her duties.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A document with side-by-side comparisons of the current 
duties of inspectors, HIOs, and show management with those proposed 
in this rulemaking can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Sec.  11.10(c)(3), we would require that after an 
authorized HPI has completed inspection of a horse, management must 
prevent tampering with any part of a horse's limbs or hooves in such a 
way that could cause a horse to be sore.
    Under proposed Sec.  11.10(c)(4), we would require that management 
not dismiss or otherwise interfere with a HPI during the HPI's 
appointed tour of duty, which is the duration of the show, exhibition, 
or sale or auction. This includes situations in which management is 
dissatisfied with the performance of a particular HPI, including 
disagreement with a HPI's decision that the custodian of a horse is in 
alleged violation of the Act or regulations. However, if management has 
reason to believe that a horse is sore but it is not identified as sore 
by the HPI, management would be required to prohibit that horse from 
participating. We would state that management should immediately notify 
the Administrator, in writing, as to why the performance of a HPI was 
inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. Management would have to 
immediately prohibit from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned 
any horse alleged by the HPI to be sore or otherwise known by 
management to be sore in violation of the Act or regulations. Should 
management fail to prohibit from being shown, exhibited, sold, or 
auctioned any such horse, management would have to assume full 
responsibility for and liabilities arising from the showing, 
exhibition, sale, or auction of such horses.
    Finally, under proposed Sec.  11.10(c)(5), we would require that if 
an authorized HPI or APHIS representative finds any horse to be sore at 
a show, exhibition, sale, or auction featuring Tennessee Walking 
Horses, Racking Horses, or related breeds, the management would have to 
prohibit the horse from competing in that show or exhibition.
Records and Reporting
    To improve organization of the regulations, we are proposing to 
move the records and reporting requirements for management in current 
Sec. Sec.  11.22, 11.23, and 11.24 to proposed Sec.  11.11 and amend 
them.
    In proposed Sec.  11.11(a)(1), we would include record requirements 
for show management adapted from current Sec.  11.22. However, we would 
require that management maintain all records for a period of at least 6 
years, instead of the current 90 days, following the closing date of 
the show, exhibition, or sale or auction. We are proposing this change 
to ensure that records remain available for verifying compliance with 
the Act and regulations. Investigations of suspected cases of soring 
often take greater than 90 days, so requiring show managers to hold 
onto records for additional lengths of time would greatly aid these 
investigations with minimal burden on show managers. We have proposed 6 
years, which accounts for the statute of limitations plus an

[[Page 49126]]

additional year. Investigations and case development on cases involving 
the HPA can be difficult and the extra time we would require these 
records to be held would greatly assist our ability to properly enforce 
the Act. Although the field investigative process may conclude in 
roughly a year, the administrative (or civil or criminal) enforcement 
based on the investigation takes many years. Often times, when 
attorneys review investigative files, they request additional 
information related to the alleged violation(s) that may have not been 
collected as part of the initial investigation. We want to ensure the 
records are preserved so long as the investigation remains open and 
active, which is the case until APHIS receives a final legal decision 
on the matter. These records would have to contain the following 
information:
     The dates and place of the horse show, exhibition, sale, 
or auction.
     The name and address (including street address or post 
office box number, and ZIP Code) of the sponsoring organization.
     The name and address of the horse show, exhibition, sale, 
or auction management.
     The name and address (including street address or post 
office box number, and ZIP Code) of the HPIs, if any, employed to 
conduct inspections and, if applicable, the name of the HIO with which 
the HPIs are affiliated.
     The name and address (including street address or post 
office box number, and ZIP Code) of each show judge.
     A copy of each class or sale sheet containing the names of 
horses, the names and addresses (including street address or post 
office box number, and ZIP Code) of horse owners, the exhibitor number 
and class number, or sale number assigned to each horse, the show class 
or sale lot number, and the name and address (including street address 
or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person paying the entry 
fee and entering the horse in a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction.
     A copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction program, if any such program has been prepared.
     The name and identification of each horse as required in 
proposed Sec.  11.10(a)(5), as well as the name and address (including 
street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the owner, 
the trainer, the custodian, and the location (including street address 
and ZIP Code) of the home barn or other facility where the horse is 
stabled.
    We would include in proposed Sec.  11.11(a)(2) the requirement from 
current Sec.  11.22(b), which requires that management designate a 
person to maintain the required records.
    In proposed Sec.  11.11(a)(3), we would include the requirement 
from current Sec.  11.22(c) that management furnish to any APHIS 
representative, upon request, the name and address (including street 
address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person 
designated by the sponsoring organization or manager to maintain the 
records required throughout proposed Sec.  11.11. We would add the 
requirement that management provide the information requested within 30 
days of the request.
    We would include provisions for the inspection of records in 
current Sec.  11.23 in proposed Sec.  11.11(b) and remove Sec.  11.23 
from the regulations. Under these provisions, the management of any 
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction must permit any APHIS 
representative, upon request, to examine and make copies of records 
pertaining to any horse, either required in any part of the regulations 
or otherwise maintained, during ordinary business hours or other times 
as may be mutually agreed upon. A room, table, or other facilities 
necessary for proper examination and copying of such records would need 
to be made available to the APHIS representative.
    We also propose to move provisions for reporting in current Sec.  
11.24 to proposed Sec.  11.11(c) and remove Sec.  11.24 from the 
regulations. We would add that the reports required in proposed Sec.  
11.11 may be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email 
and note that we prefer that reports be submitted via electronic means.
    In proposed Sec.  11.11(c)(1), we would include from current Sec.  
11.24(a) the requirement that following the conclusion of any horse 
show, exhibition, sale, or auction featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, 
Racking Horses, or related breeds, the management of such show, 
exhibition, sale or auction would have to submit to the Administrator 
the information required by proposed Sec.  11.11(a)(1) for each horse 
disqualified from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the 
reasons for such action. However, instead of requiring that this 
information be submitted to the Administrator within 5 days, we would 
allow it to be submitted within 30 days following the conclusion of the 
show or other event. This change gives management more time to compile 
the necessary information. If no horses are disqualified, the 
management would still have to submit a report stating this fact.
    Similarly, in proposed Sec.  11.11(c)(2), we would include from 
Sec.  11.24(b) the requirement that following the conclusion of any 
horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction that does not include 
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, or related breeds, the 
management would have to inform the Administrator of any case where a 
horse was disqualified by management or its representatives from being 
shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be sore. We 
would allow that this information be submitted within 30 days following 
the conclusion of the show or other event.
Inspection Procedures for Horse Protection Inspectors
    Horse inspection procedures are currently located throughout 
several sections of the regulations. We propose to add a new Sec.  
11.12 in which inspection procedures would be consolidated and amended 
to reflect proposed changes in other sections, as explained below.
    Current Sec.  11.20(b)(2) contains requirements for inspectors. We 
would remove this section and include a requirement in proposed Sec.  
11.12(a)(1) that the HPI physically inspect all Tennessee Walking 
Horses, Racking Horses, and related breeds for which soring is a 
concern that are:
     Entered for sale or auction;
     Entered in any animated gait class (whether under saddle, 
horse to cart, or otherwise), regardless of breed;
     Entered for exhibition before they are admitted to be 
shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned, except as provided in proposed 
Sec.  11.12(a)(2);
     Tied first in their class or event, and any other 
Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or other breed in a class or 
event at any horse show or exhibition that, in the view of the HPI, 
raises a concern about soring. Such an inspection would be for the 
purpose of determining whether any such horses are in compliance with 
the Act or regulations. The inspection would be conducted in accordance 
with the inspection procedures provided for in proposed Sec.  11.12.
    In proposed Sec.  11.12(a)(2), adapted in part from current Sec.  
11.20(b)(2), we would require that when a horse is presented for 
inspection, its custodian must present the HPI with a record or entry 
card that includes the horse's required identifying information. The 
HPI would be required to observe horses in the designated warm-up area 
and during actual performances whenever possible and to inspect any 
horse in the barn area and show grounds as he or she deems necessary to 
determine whether the custodian of any such horse shown, exhibited, 
sold, or auctioned is in

[[Page 49127]]

compliance with the Act and regulations.
    Current Sec.  11.20(b)(3) states that an inspector must immediately 
report, to the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction, any horse which, in his opinion, is sore or otherwise in 
alleged violation of the Act or regulations. Paragraph (b)(3) further 
states that such report must be made, whenever possible, before the 
show class or exhibition involving the horse has begun or before the 
horse is offered for sale or auction.
    We would include this reporting requirement in proposed Sec.  
11.12(a)(4) without the words ``whenever possible,'' to eliminate the 
possibility of sored horses competing or being sold before a report is 
made.
    In proposed Sec.  11.12(a)(5), we would include the requirement 
that horses prohibited from entering the show arena, whether by a 
judge, steward, or custodian of the horse, be taken directly to the 
inspection area for follow-up inspection by a HPI. Horses that suffer 
serious illness or injury while performing, and determined by an 
authorized HPI or APHIS representative to require immediate veterinary 
treatment, would not be required to return to the inspection area.
    In proposed Sec.  11.12(b), we would include procedures that must 
be followed by HPIs while conducting inspections. The intent of these 
procedures is to help ensure that a HPI can conduct an inspection of 
the horse to determine whether the custodian of the horse is in 
compliance with the Act or regulations.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec.  11.12 would require that a HPI 
ensure that all tack except for a halter and lead rope is removed from 
the horse during inspection.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Sec.  11.12 would require that during 
the preshow inspection, the HPI direct the custodian of the horse to 
lead, walk, and turn the horse in a figure-eight to allow the HPI to 
determine whether the horse exhibits a gait deficiency. A figure-eight 
pattern ensures that the HPI gets an impression of the horse adequate 
to determine whether the horse moves in a free and easy manner.
    We would include specific requirements in proposed Sec.  
11.12(b)(3), taken in part from current Sec.  11.21(a)(3), for proper 
manipulation of the hoof and limb of a horse during inspection. The 
digital palpation conducted throughout this process would require 
pressure against the hoof and limb sufficient to blanch, or whiten, the 
thumb of the inspecting HPI. The HPI would have to palpate the front 
limbs of the horse from knee to hoof, with particular emphasis on the 
fetlocks and pasterns. The HPI would also have to inspect the posterior 
surface of the pastern by picking up the hoof and examining the 
posterior (flexor) surface. In addition, the HPI would need to 
digitally palpate the pocket (sulcus), including the bulbs of the heel, 
and continue the palpation to the medial and lateral surfaces of the 
pastern. During palpation of the hoof and limb, the HPI is required to 
watch for responses to pain in the horse such as sudden movements. 
While continuing to hold the pastern, the HPI would have to extend the 
hoof and limb of the horse to inspect the front (extensor) surfaces, 
including the coronary band.
    The HPI may also inspect the rear limbs of all horses inspected 
after showing, and before showing or on the show grounds whenever he or 
she considers it necessary. The HPI would be required to inspect the 
rear limbs of all horses exhibiting lesions or unusual movement of the 
rear limbs. While carrying out the procedures set forth in paragraph 
(b)(3) of proposed Sec.  11.12, the HPI would also have to inspect the 
horse to determine whether it complies with the scar rule in Sec.  
11.3.
    As part of the inspection, the HPI may also use an x-ray machine or 
other technologies to detect evidence of soring consistent with 
violations of the Act or regulations. Such soring practices can include 
intentional manipulation of a horse's hooves or feet in such a way that 
can reasonably be expected to cause physical pain or distress, 
inflammation, or lameness when the animal is walking, trotting, or 
otherwise moving.
    We would require in paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Sec.  11.12, 
adapted in part from current Sec.  11.21(a)(3), that a HPI observe and 
inspect all horses for compliance with the provisions set forth in 
proposed Sec.  11.2, ``Prohibited Actions, Practices, Devices, and 
Substances.''
    In proposed Sec.  11.12(b)(5), adapted from current Sec.  
11.21(a)(4), we would require that the HPI instruct the custodian of 
the horse to control it for inspection by holding the lead rope 
approximately 18 inches from the halter. The HPI will not inspect a 
horse if it is presented in a manner that might cause the horse not to 
react to a HPI's inspection, or if whips, cigarette smoke, or other 
actions or paraphernalia are used to distract a horse during 
inspection.\18\ Horses that are not presented in a manner to allow 
their proper inspection, as well as unruly or fractious horses, would 
be prohibited from showing. The HPI would have to report all such 
incidents to show management and APHIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See footnote 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec.  11.12, adapted in part from 
paragraph (b) of current Sec.  11.21, would include inspection 
logistics for HPIs.
    Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec.  11.12 would require that in 
shows with more than 150 horses entered, an authorized HPI may inspect 
horses 3 classes ahead of the time such horses are to be shown but only 
if another authorized HPI can provide continuous and uninterrupted 
supervision of the designated warm-up area for the inspected horses. 
This is intended to reduce crowding in the designated warm-up area and 
to lessen the risk that inspected horses could be tampered with while 
waiting to be shown. In shows with 150 horses or fewer entered, one HPI 
may inspect horses 2 classes ahead of the time the inspected horses are 
to be shown but only if another authorized HPI can provide continuous 
and uninterrupted supervision of the designated warm-up area for the 
inspected horses.
    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Sec.  11.12 would require that 
inspected horses be held in a designated area that is under observation 
by an authorized HPI or an APHIS representative. Horses would not be 
permitted to leave the designated area before showing. Only the horse, 
the custodian, the trainer, the HPI(s), and APHIS representatives would 
be allowed in the designated area. As noted in proposed Sec.  
11.9(b)(3)(i), official guests of show management, such as elected 
officials, legislators, and technical advisers would be allowed access 
to the designated inspection and warm-up areas for limited periods of 
time at the discretion of show management and only with the concurrence 
of authorized HPIs or APHIS representatives.
    We would include in proposed Sec.  11.12(d) requirements for 
additional inspection procedures that have been adapted from current 
Sec.  11.21(d). We would allow the HPI to carry out additional 
inspection procedures on a horse as he or she deems necessary to 
determine whether the custodian of the horse is in compliance with the 
Act and regulations. The HPI would be permitted to remove and inspect 
plastic, cotton, or any materials wrapped around the limbs of any horse 
at a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to determine whether any 
prohibited foreign substances are present. The HPI may also require 
that horseshoes be removed by a farrier provided by management as part 
of the inspection. Finally, the HPI would be authorized to use 
hooftesters on all horses.

[[Page 49128]]

Transportation of Horses
    We would move the prohibitions and requirements in current Sec.  
11.40 concerning persons involved in transporting certain horses to 
proposed Sec.  11.13 and remove Sec.  11.40. Under the regulations, 
each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or delivers or 
receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse may 
be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, 
or sale or auction, would be required to allow inspection of such horse 
at any such show, exhibition, sale, or auction to determine compliance 
with the Act and regulations. Such a person would also be required to 
furnish to any APHIS representatives upon request the following 
information: Name and address (including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and of the shipper, if 
different from the owner or trainer; name and address of the horse 
trainer; name and address of the carrier transporting the horse and the 
driver of the means of conveyance used; the origin and date of the 
shipment; and the destination of the shipment. We would also require 
the transporter to provide APHIS with the name and address (including 
street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse's 
farrier.

Alternatives Considered

    Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which emphasize 
determining the least costly regulatory option, and with the 
President's January 12, 2011, Memorandum on Small Businesses and Job 
Creation, APHIS has considered several alternatives to this proposed 
action. For the reasons discussed below, we believe the changes 
proposed in this document represented the best alternative option that 
would satisfactorily accomplish the stated objectives and minimize 
impacts on small entities. However, we welcome comments from the public 
on these and other alternative options. Specifically, we would seek 
feedback on the viability of alternative approaches that would continue 
to rely on the horse industry organization concept, and what the 
governance of such an organization should be like. Additionally, we 
would request comments on how any proposed alternative would minimize 
the conflicts of interest issues raised by the 2010 Office of the 
Inspector General report into the horse protection program, especially 
as compared to the changes proposed in this document.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget.
    We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic 
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, which 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, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance 
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of 
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis 
also provides an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that examines 
the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is 
summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by 
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or 
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions 
for accessing Regulations.gov).
    The prohibition of pads and action devices does not impose costs on 
shows or the shows' participants. However, of these proposed amendments 
to the horse protection regulations, only the amendments requiring a 
farrier to be present for all shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions 
and a minimum of 2 HPIs for shows with 150 or fewer horses and more 
than 2 HPIs for shows with more than 150 horses may result in 
additional costs for the shows or their participants. Based on the 
estimates of an expert elicitation commissioned by APHIS, the cost of 
services provided by veterinarians, farriers, and HPIs ranges from a 
few hundred to several thousand dollars. However, by prohibiting pads 
and action devices, inspections may be slightly more efficient and less 
time-consuming. Any additional cost burden to a show would depend on 
the show's ability to pass these costs along to attendants or other 
entities involved with the shows. Many if not most of the entities that 
may be affected by this proposed rule are small.
    While the proposed rule would result in better oversight of the 
HPIs and enforcement of the HPA, implementation of the proposed changes 
would result in additional administrative and computer-related costs 
associated with training, licensing, and certifying HPIs. Consequently, 
APHIS would need to allocate resources to design, coordinate, and 
deliver computer-based training of HPIs, and provide program guidance 
and oversight. In FY 2015, the USDA's Horse Protection Program received 
$697,000 in appropriated funding. APHIS would be able to implement the 
proposed Horse Protection Program revisions and maintain this same 
level of funding through a reallocation among Program activities of 
approximately $300,000. For example, APHIS expects there to be a large 
reduction in Program travel expenditures because, with the HPIs trained 
and licensed by APHIS, they will require less direct Agency oversight. 
USDA personnel would continue to attend a percentage of horse events, 
to ensure consistency among inspectors, address performance concerns, 
and assist in meeting the program's goals.
    The benefits of the proposed rule are expected to justify the 
costs. The proposed changes to the horse protection regulations would 
promote the humane treatment of walking and racking horses by more 
effectively ensuring that those horses that participate in exhibitions, 
sales, shows, or auctions are not sored. This benefit is an 
unquantifiable animal welfare enhancement.
    The proposed rule is not expected to adversely impact communities 
in which shows are held since walking and racking horse shows are 
expected to continue. Therefore, owners will still be able to 
participate in shows if they choose to participate. Better enforcement 
of the HPA is expected to also benefit participating HIOs and HIO-
affiliated shows by improving the reputation of the walking and racking 
horse industry. Participation in HIO-affiliated events may increase if 
the proposed rule were to result in increased confidence by owners that 
individuals who intentionally sore horses to gain a competitive 
advantage are likely to be prevented from participating. The affected 
HIOs would also benefit from no longer having to bear the costs of 
training and licensing the HPIs.
    If promulgated, this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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.'' Executive Order 13175

[[Page 49129]]

requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a 
government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal 
implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed 
legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have 
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes.
    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has assessed the 
impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this 
proposed rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that 
require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe 
requests consultation, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful 
consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications 
identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

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 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. 
The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be 
exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), some of the information collection 
and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been 
approved under 0579-0056. The new reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements proposed by this rule have been submitted as a new 
information collection package for approval to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). Upon approval of this new information collection, it 
will be merged into the existing 0579-0056. Please send written 
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 
Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state 
that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009. Please send a 
copy of your comments to: (1) APHIS, using one of the methods described 
under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, and (2) Clearance 
Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20250.
    The regulations in 9 CFR part 11 authorized by the HPA require 
actions including, but not limited to, ensuring that inspectors are 
trained and licensed; requiring the management of horse shows, 
auctions, sales, and/or exhibitions to notify APHIS in advance that 
events are going to occur and to provide for the inspection of horses 
for soring; requiring inspectors to notify the custodian if a horse is 
detained for inspection, testing, or taking of evidence with respect to 
soring; and providing a waiver process to waive certain classes of 
horses from being inspected for soring.
    We are soliciting comments from the public and others concerning 
our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. 
These comments will help us:
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who 
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses).
    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 7 minutes per response.
    Respondents: Management of horse shows, events, auctions, sales, 
and exhibitions; individuals seeking inspector certification; and 
certified inspectors.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 50.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 8.72.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 436.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 51 hours. (Due to 
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of 
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per 
response.)
    Copies of this new information collection are located at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0009 and can be 
obtained from Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection 
Coordinator, at 301-851-2727.
    USDA will respond to any information collection request-related 
comments in the final rule. All comments will also become a matter of 
public record.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet 
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities 
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for 
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act 
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly 
Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 11

    Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, we propose to revise 9 CFR part 11 to read as follows:

PART 11--HORSE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Sec.
11.1 Definitions.
11.2 Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.
11.3 Scar rule.
11.4 Providing required information.
11.5 Inspection and detention of horses; responsible parties.
11.6 Training and licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs).
11.7-11.8 [Reserved]
11.9 Management responsibilities; access, space, and facilities.
11.10 Management responsibilities; operation of horse shows, horse 
exhibitions, and horse sales and auctions.
11.11 Management responsibilities; records and reporting.
11.12 Inspection procedures for HPIs.
11.13 Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation of 
certain horses.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 1823-1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 
371.7.


Sec.  11.1  Definitions.

    For the purpose of this part, unless the context otherwise 
requires, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them 
in this section. The

[[Page 49130]]

singular form shall also impart the plural and the masculine form shall 
also impart the feminine. Words of art undefined in the following 
paragraphs shall have the meaning attributed to them by trade usage or 
general usage as reflected by definition in a standard dictionary, such 
as ``Webster's.''
    Act means the Horse Protection Act, as amended (Pub. L. 94-360), 15 
U.S.C. 1821 et seq.
    Action device means any boot, collar, chain, beads, bangles, 
roller, or other device which encircles or is placed upon the lower 
extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can either 
rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg so as to cause 
friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band, or fetlock joint.
    Administrator means the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the 
Administrator. Mail for the Administrator should be sent to the Animal 
and Plant Inspection Service, Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234.
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) means the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of 
Agriculture.
    APHIS representative means any employee or official of APHIS.
    Custodian means any person who is responsible for directing, 
controlling, and supervising the horse during the inspection at any 
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction; or any person who shows or 
exhibits, or enters for the purpose of showing or exhibiting, in any 
horse show or horse exhibition, any horse; or any person who sells, 
auctions, or offers for sale, in any horse sale or auction, any horse. 
The term also means any person who owns a horse and allows the horse to 
be shown, exhibited, or entered in a show or exhibition, sold or 
auctioned, or entered in a sale or auction, or transported for any of 
these purposes, or any person who transports a horse for showing, 
exhibition, sale, or auction. The custodian must also be able to 
provide required information about the horse.
    Department means the United States Department of Agriculture.
    Exhibitor means:
    (1) Any custodian who directs or allows any horse under his 
direction, control, or supervision to be entered in any horse show or 
horse exhibition;
    (2) Any custodian who shows or exhibits any horse, any custodian 
who allows his horse to be shown or exhibited, or any custodian who 
directs or allows any horse under his direction, control, or 
supervision to be shown or exhibited in any horse show or horse 
exhibition;
    (3) Any custodian who enters or presents any horse for sale or 
auction, any custodian who allows his horse to be entered or presented 
for sale or auction, or any custodian who allows any horse under his 
direction, control, or supervision to be entered or presented for sale 
or auction in any horse sale or horse auction; or
    (4) Any custodian who sells or auctions any horse, any custodian 
who allows his horse to be sold or auctioned, or any custodian who 
allows any horse under his direction, control, or supervision to be 
sold or auctioned.
    Horse means any member of the species Equus caballus.
    Horse exhibition means a public display of any horses, singly or in 
groups, but not in competition. The term does not include events where 
speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades, or trail rides.
    Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) means a person meeting the 
requirements specified in Sec.  11.6 whom the Administrator has 
licensed as a HPI (formerly termed a Designated Qualified Person, or 
DQP). A HPI may be appointed and delegated authority by the management 
of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction under 
section 4 of the Act to detect or diagnose horses which are sore or to 
otherwise inspect horses and any records pertaining to such horses for 
the purposes of enforcing the Act.
    Horse sale or horse auction means any event, public or private, at 
which horses are sold or auctioned, regardless of whether or not the 
horses are exhibited prior to or during the sale or auction.
    Horse show means a public display of any horses, in competition. 
The term does not include events where speed is the prime factor, rodeo 
events, parades, or trail rides.
    Inspection means any visual, physical, and diagnostic means 
approved by APHIS to determine compliance with the Act and regulations. 
Such inspection may include, but is not limited to, visual inspection 
of a horse and records, physical inspection of a horse, including 
touching, rubbing, palpating, and observation of vital signs, and the 
use of any diagnostic device or instrument, and may require the removal 
of any shoe or any other equipment, substance, or paraphernalia from 
the horse when deemed necessary by the person conducting such 
inspection.
    Management means any person who organizes, exercises control over, 
or administers or is responsible for organizing, directing, or 
administering any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or horse 
auction and specifically includes, but is not limited to, the 
sponsoring organization and show manager.
    Person means any individual, corporation, company, association, 
firm, partnership, society, organization, joint stock company, State or 
local government agency, or other legal entity.
    Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture or anyone who has 
heretofore or may hereafter be delegated authority to act in his stead.
    Show manager means the person who has been delegated primary 
authority by a sponsoring organization for managing a horse show, horse 
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
    Sore when used to describe a horse means:
    (1) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally 
or externally, to any limb of a horse;
    (2) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted on any limb of 
a horse;
    (3) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected into 
or used on any limb of a horse; or
    (4) Any other substance or device has been used on any limb of a 
horse, and as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, 
or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to 
suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when 
walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not 
include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in 
connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the 
supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the 
State in which such treatment was given.
    Sponsoring organization means any person or entity under whose 
responsibility a horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse 
auction is conducted.
    State means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
    Substance means any agent applied to a horse's limbs while a horse 
is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the 
grounds at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. 
This definition also includes any agent applied to a horse's limbs 
before or after a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or 
otherwise present on the grounds at any

[[Page 49131]]

horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.


Sec.  11.2  Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.

    (a) Specific prohibitions. No device, method, practice, or 
substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any horse show, 
horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use causes or can 
reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore. The use of the 
following devices, equipment, or practices is specifically prohibited 
with respect to any Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related 
breed that performs with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about 
soring at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse 
auction:
    (1) Any action device as defined in Sec.  11.1 is prohibited.
    (2) Any pad, wedge, or hoof band is prohibited.
    (3) The use of any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg 
or similar conventional horseshoe is prohibited, as is the use of a 
horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces.
    (4) Artificial extension of the toe length is prohibited.
    (5) Any object or material inserted into the hoof other than 
acceptable hoof packing, which includes pine tar, oakum, live rubber, 
sponge rubber, silicone, commercial hoof packing or other substances 
used to maintain adequate frog pressure or sole consistency, is 
prohibited. Acrylic and other hardening substances are prohibited as 
hoof packing.
    (6) Single or double rocker-bars on the bottom surface of 
horseshoes which extend more than 1 1/2 inches back from the point of 
the toe, or any device which would cause, or could reasonably be 
expected to cause, an unsteadiness of stance in the horse with 
resulting muscle and tendon strain due to the horse's weight and 
balance being focused upon a small fulcrum point, are prohibited.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This prohibition is not intended to disallow corrective 
devices, such as Memphis bars which consist of a metal bar(s) 
crossing from the ground surface of one side of the horseshoe to the 
ground surface of the other side of the horseshoe, and the purpose 
of which is to correct a lameness or pathological condition of the 
hoof: Provided, That such metal bar(s) do not act as a single 
fulcrum point so as to affect the balance of the horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Shoeing a horse, or trimming a horse's hoof in a manner that 
will cause such horse to suffer, or can reasonably be expected to cause 
such horse to suffer pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when 
walking, trotting, or otherwise moving is prohibited, as is paring out 
of the frog. Bruising of the hoof or any other method of pressure 
shoeing is prohibited.
    (8) Lead or other weights attached to the outside of the hoof wall 
or the outside surface of the horseshoe are prohibited. Hollow shoes or 
artificial extensions filled with mercury or similar substances are 
prohibited.
    (b) Substances. Any substances are prohibited on the limbs of any 
Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or related breed horse that 
performs with an accentuated gait while being shown, exhibited, or 
offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at, any horse 
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.
    (c) Restrictions on 2-year-old horses. With regard to 2-year-old 
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related horse breeds that 
perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring 
(horses eligible to be shown or exhibited in 2-year-old classes), any 
performances, classes, workouts, or working exhibitions at horse shows, 
exhibitions, sales or auctions must not exceed a total of 10 minutes 
continuous workout or performance without a minimum 5-minute rest 
period between the first such 10-minute period and the second such 10-
minute period. More than two such 10-minute periods per performance, 
class, or workout are prohibited.


Sec.  11.3  Scar rule.

    The scar rule applies to all horses born on or after October 1, 
1975. Horses subject to this rule that do not meet the following scar 
rule criteria shall be considered to be ``sore'' and are subject to all 
prohibitions of section 5 of the Act. The scar rule criteria are as 
follows:
    (a) The anterior and anterior-lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns 
(extensor surface) must be free of bilateral granulomas,\2\ other 
bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and other bilateral 
evidence of abuse indicative of soring including, but not limited to, 
excessive loss of hair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Granuloma is defined as any one of a rather large group of 
fairly distinctive focal lesions that are formed as a result of 
inflammatory reactions caused by biological, chemical, or physical 
agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), 
including the sulcus or ``pocket'' may show bilateral areas of 
uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of 
proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other 
evidence of inflammation.


Sec.  11.4  Providing required information.

    Failing to provide information, or providing any false or 
misleading information, by any custodian of any horse shown, exhibited, 
sold, or auctioned or entered for the purpose of being shown, 
exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any horse show, horse exhibition, or 
horse sale or auction, is prohibited. Such information shall include, 
but is not limited to: The name and identification of the horse; the 
name and address of the horse's training and/or stabling facilities; 
the name and address of the legal owner, trainer, custodian, or other 
legal entity bearing responsibility for the horse; the class in which 
the horse is entered or shown; the exhibitor identification number; and 
any other information reasonably related to the identification, 
ownership, control, direction, or supervision of any such horse.


Sec.  11.5  Inspection and detention of horses; responsible parties.

    (a) Each custodian of any horse at any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, 
assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS representative or 
authorized Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) appointed by management to 
all areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, 
stalls, paddocks, or other show, exhibition, or sale or auction grounds 
or related areas at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
auction, for the purpose of inspecting any such horse at any and all 
reasonable times. Such inspections may be required of any horse which 
is stabled, loaded on a trailer, being prepared for show, exhibition, 
or sale or auction, being exercised or otherwise on the grounds of, or 
present on the grounds at, any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction, whether or not such horse has or has not been shown, 
exhibited, or sold or auctioned, or has or has not been entered for the 
purpose of being shown or exhibited or offered for sale or auction at 
any such horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. HPIs 
and APHIS representatives will not generally or routinely delay or 
interrupt actual individual classes or performances at horse shows, 
horse exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions for the purpose of 
examining horses, but they may do so in extraordinary situations such 
as, but not limited to, lack of proper facilities for inspection, 
failure of management to cooperate with inspection efforts, reason to 
believe that failure to immediately perform inspections may result in 
the loss, removal, or masking of any evidence of a violation of the Act 
or the regulations, or a request by management that such inspections be 
performed by

[[Page 49132]]

an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (b) Each custodian of any horse at any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall promptly present his horse 
for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any APHIS 
representative or an authorized HPI appointed by management, that the 
horse has been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining 
whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.
    (c) No tack other than a halter and lead rope may be on the horse 
during inspection.
    (d) When an authorized HPI or APHIS representative notifies the 
custodian of a horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale 
or auction that he or she desires to inspect such horse, it shall not 
be moved from the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or 
auction until such inspection has been completed and the horse has been 
released by an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (e) For the purpose of inspection, testing, or taking of evidence, 
authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives may detain for a period not 
to exceed 24 hours any horse, at any horse show, horse exhibition, or 
horse sale or auction, which is sore or which an authorized HPI or 
APHIS representative has probable cause to believe is sore. Such 
detained horse may be marked for identification and any such 
identifying markings shall not be removed by any person other than an 
authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (f) Detained horses shall be kept under the supervision of an 
authorized HPI or APHIS representative in a horse stall, horse trailer, 
or other facility to which access shall be limited. It shall be the 
policy of APHIS to have at least one authorized HPI or APHIS 
representative present in the immediate detention area when a horse is 
being held in detention. A detained horse cannot be moved by any person 
other than an authorized HPI or an APHIS representative, unless:
    (1) The life or well-being of the detained horse is immediately 
endangered by fire, flood, windstorm, or other dire circumstances that 
are beyond human control.
    (2) The detained horse is in need of such immediate veterinary 
attention that its life may be in peril before an authorized HPI or 
APHIS representative can be located.
    (3) The horse has been detained for a maximum 24-hour detention 
period, and an authorized HPI or APHIS representative is not available 
to release the horse.
    (g) The custodian of any horse detained by an authorized HPI or 
APHIS for further examination, testing, or the taking of evidence shall 
be allowed to feed, water, and provide other normal custodial and 
maintenance care, such as walking, grooming, etc., for such detained 
horse:
    Provided, That:
    (1) Such feeding, watering, and other normal custodial and 
maintenance care of the detained horse is rendered under the direct 
supervision of an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (2) Any non-emergency veterinary care of the detained horse 
requiring the use, application, or injection of any drugs or other 
medication for therapeutic or other purposes is rendered by a Doctor of 
Veterinary Medicine in the presence of an authorized HPI or APHIS 
representative and, the identity and dosage of the drug or other 
medication used, applied, or injected and its purpose is furnished in 
writing to the authorized HPI or APHIS representative prior to such 
use, application, or injection by the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine 
attending the horse. The use, application, or injection of such drug or 
other medication must be certified by an authorized HPI or APHIS 
representative.
    (h) When possible, APHIS will inform the custodian of any horse 
allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations of 
such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released by an 
authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (i) The custodian of any horse or horses that an authorized HPI or 
APHIS representative determines shall be detained for inspection, 
testing, or taking of evidence pursuant to paragraph (e) of this 
section shall be informed after such determination is made and shall 
allow the horse to be immediately put under the supervisory custody of 
APHIS as provided in paragraph (f) of this section until the completion 
of such inspection, testing, or gathering of evidence, or until the 24-
hour detention period expires.
    (j) The custodian of any horse allegedly found to be in violation 
of the Act or regulations, and who has been notified of such alleged 
violation by an authorized HPI or APHIS representative as stated in 
paragraph (h) of this section, may request reinspection and testing of 
the horse within a 24-hour period if:
    (1) Such request is made to the APHIS representative immediately 
after the horse has been inspected by an authorized HPI or APHIS 
representative and before such horse has been removed from the 
inspection facilities; and
    (2) An authorized HPI or APHIS representative determines that 
sufficient cause for reinspection and testing exists; and
    (3) The horse is maintained under HPI or APHIS supervisory custody 
as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section until such reinspection 
and testing has been completed.
    (k) The custodian of any horse being inspected shall render such 
assistance as an authorized HPI or APHIS representative may request for 
purposes of such inspection.


Sec.  11.6  Training and licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors 
(HPIs).

    APHIS will train and license HPIs. The management of any horse 
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction may engage HPIs 
holding a valid, current license under section 4 of the Act and appoint 
and delegate authority to HPIs to detect or diagnose horses that are 
sore or to otherwise inspect horses and any records pertaining to such 
horses for the purposes of enforcing the Act. A current list of 
licensed HPIs is available on the APHIS Horse Protection Program Web 
site.
    (a) Basic qualifications of HPI applicants. Persons licensed as 
HPIs under this part shall be veterinarians or veterinary technicians. 
The required qualifications of each are as follows. (1) Veterinarians 
must have extensive knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and 
science defined as understanding the anatomy, selection, breeding, 
care, and maintenance of horses, and applicable principles of equine 
science, welfare, care, and veterinary health, and be eligible to be 
licensed as HPIs under paragraph (b) of this section. Veterinarians 
must also be accredited in any State by the United States Department of 
Agriculture under part 161 of this chapter and be:
    (i) Members of the American Association of Equine Practitioners; or
    (ii) Large animal practitioners with substantial equine experience; 
or
    (iii) Knowledgeable in the area of equine soring and soring 
practices (such as Doctors of Veterinary Medicine with a small animal 
practice with sufficient knowledge of horses, or Doctors of Veterinary 
Medicine who teach equine-related subjects in an accredited college or 
school of veterinary medicine).
    (2) Veterinary technicians who wish to be licensed as HPIs under 
this part must have a degree awarded by an educational program 
accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association Committee on 
Veterinary Technician Education and Activities, possess adequate 
knowledge and

[[Page 49133]]

experience of equine husbandry and science, and be eligible to be 
licensed as HPIs under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Additional restrictions on HPI licensing. (1) APHIS will not 
license any person as a HPI if that person has been convicted or found 
to have violated any provision of the Act or the regulations in this 
part occurring after July 13, 1976, or has been assessed any fine or 
civil penalty, or has been the subject of a disqualification order in 
any proceeding involving an alleged violation of the Act or regulations 
occurring after July 13, 1976.
    (2) APHIS will not license any person as a HPI if that person, any 
member of that person's immediate family, or that person's employer 
participates in the showing of horses or acts as a judge or farrier, or 
is an agent of show management involving any Tennessee Walking Horses, 
Racking Horses, or related breeds.
    (3) APHIS will not license any person as a HPI if that person has 
been disqualified by the Secretary of Agriculture from making 
detection, diagnosis, or inspection for the purpose of enforcing the 
Act.
    (4) APHIS will not license any person as a HPI if the honesty, 
professional integrity, reputation, practices, and reliability of the 
person do not support a conclusion that the applicant is fit to carry 
out the duties of a HPI. In making this conclusion, the Administrator 
shall review all available information about the applicant and shall 
consider:
    (i) Criminal conviction records, if any, indicating that the person 
may lack the honesty, integrity, and reliability to appropriately and 
effectively perform HPI duties;
    (ii) Official records of the person's actions while participating 
in Federal, State, or local veterinary programs when those actions 
reflect on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the 
person;
    (iii) Judicial determinations in any type of litigation adversely 
reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of 
the person; and
    (iv) Any other evidence reflecting on the honesty, reputation, 
professional integrity, reputation, practices, and reliability of the 
person.
    (c) Licensing of HPIs. (1) All persons wishing to become HPIs must 
submit an application to the Administrator. Applicants will be required 
to show that they satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section. HPI applicants selected as candidates will complete a 
formal training program administered by APHIS. This training program 
will include instruction on:
    (i) The anatomy and physiology of the limbs of a horse;
    (ii) The Act and the regulations in this part;
    (iii) The history of soring, the physical inspection procedures 
necessary to detect soring, the detection and diagnosis of soring, and 
related subjects;
    (iv) Practical instruction using live horses;
    (v) HPI standards of conduct; and
    (vi) Recordkeeping requirements and procedures.
    (2) After a HPI candidate successfully completes the formal 
training program in paragraph (c)(1) of this section and passes a 
written examination, a license will be granted to that candidate for 1 
year. Licenses terminate after 1 year and all HPIs must submit a new 
application each year if they wish to be considered for licensing for 
another year.
    (d) Requirements to be met by HPIs. (1) Any licensed HPI appointed 
by the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or 
auction to inspect horses for the purpose of detecting and determining 
or diagnosing horses which are sore and to otherwise inspect horses for 
the purpose of determining compliance with the Act and regulations 
shall collect and maintain the following information and records 
concerning any horse which he or she recommends be disqualified or 
prohibited for any reason from being shown, exhibited, sold or 
auctioned:
    (i) The name and address, including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code, of the show and the show manager;
    (ii) The name and address, including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code, of the horse owner;
    (iii) The name and address, including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code, of the horse trainer;
    (iv) The name and address, including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code, of the farrier;
    (v) The name and address, including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code, of the horse exhibitor;
    (vi) The exhibitor's number and class number, or the sale or 
auction tag number of the horse;
    (vii) The date and time of the inspection;
    (viii) A detailed description of all of the HPI's findings and the 
nature of the alleged violation, or other reason for prohibiting the 
horse, including the HPI's statement regarding the evidence or facts 
upon which show management disqualified the horse from a show, 
exhibition, sale or auction;
    (ix) The name, registration number (if the horse is registered), 
age, sex, color, and markings of the horse; and
    (x) The name or names of the show manager or other management 
representative notified by the HPI that such horse should be 
disqualified and whether or not such manager or management 
representative disqualified such horse.
    (2) Copies of the records required by paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section shall be submitted by the HPI to APHIS and show management 
within 72 hours after the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is 
over.
    (3) After completing inspection, the HPI shall inform the custodian 
of each horse that is noncompliant with the Act or regulations, notify 
the custodian, on behalf of show management, that the horse is 
disqualified from participating in any show, exhibition, sale or 
auction, or involved with any other action under the Act or its 
regulations along with the reasons for such action. The HPI shall 
collect the information relating to the alleged violation from the 
custodian.
    (4) The HPI shall immediately inform management of each case 
regarding the custodian of any horse which, in his opinion, is found to 
be in noncompliance with the Act or regulations.
    (e) Denial and revocation of HPI license. APHIS will deny or revoke 
a license for any of the reasons outlined in paragraph (b) of this 
section, and will revoke the license of any HPI who fails to follow the 
inspection procedures set forth in Sec.  11.12, or who otherwise 
carries out his or her duties and responsibilities in a less than 
satisfactory manner. Upon denial or revocation of a license, the 
applicant or HPI may appeal the revocation to the Administrator within 
30 days from the date of such decision, and the Administrator shall 
make a final determination in the matter. If the Administrator upholds 
the denial or revocation of the license, the applicant or HPI shall be 
given notice and opportunity for a hearing. Hearings will be in 
accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of 
Agriculture in 7 CFR 1.130 through 1.151. The license denial shall 
remain in effect until the final legal decision has been rendered.
    (f) Inspectors licensed prior to [effective date of final rule]. 
Inspectors licensed as Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs) prior to 
[effective date of final rule] may not perform inspection duties under 
that license after the effective date. DQPs seeking to become 
inspectors after [effective date of final rule] must apply for a 
license and fulfill all HPI eligibility requirements included in this 
section.

[[Page 49134]]

Sec.  11.7-11.8  [Reserved]


Sec.  11.9  Management responsibilities; access, space, and facilities.

    (a) Access to premises and records. Requirements regarding access 
to premises for inspection of horses and records are as follows:
    (1) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other 
compensation, provide authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives with 
unlimited access to the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, 
grounds, offices, and all other areas of any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction, including any adjacent areas 
under their direction, control, or supervision for the purpose of 
inspecting any horses, or any records required to be kept by regulation 
or otherwise maintained.
    (2) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other 
compensation, provide authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives with an 
adequate, safe, sufficient, and accessible area for the visual 
inspection and observation of horses while such horses are 
competitively or otherwise performing at any horse show or horse 
exhibition, or while such horses are being sold or auctioned or offered 
for sale or auction at any horse sale or horse auction.
    (b) Inspection space and facility requirements. The management of 
every horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or auction, including 
horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales or auctions which do not 
include Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, or related breeds of 
horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about 
soring, shall provide, without fee, charge, assessment, or other 
compensation, sufficient space and facilities for authorized HPIs and 
APHIS representatives to carry out their duties under the Act and 
regulations when requested to do so by authorized HPIs or APHIS 
representatives, whether or not management has received prior 
notification or otherwise knows that such show may be inspected by 
APHIS. With respect to such space and facilities, it shall be the 
responsibility of management to provide at least the following:
    (1) Sufficient space in a convenient location to the horse show, 
horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction arena, acceptable to 
authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives, in which horses may be 
physically, thermographically, or otherwise inspected.
    (2) Protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow, 
sleet, hail, wind, etc.
    (3) Control of crowds or onlookers in order that authorized HPIs 
and APHIS representatives may carry out their duties safely and without 
interference.
    (i) Each horse in the designated inspection and warm-up areas may 
be accompanied by no more than three individuals, including the 
trainer, custodian, and rider. Official guests of show management, such 
as elected officials, legislators, and technical advisers may be 
allowed access to the designated inspection and warm-up areas for 
limited periods of time at the discretion of show management and only 
with the concurrence of an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (ii) Management must not in any way influence show attendees to 
assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with 
authorized HPIs or APHIS representatives. If management influences 
attendees in such a manner, inspections will not be provided and the 
management will be liable for any violations of the Act or the 
regulations in this part.
    (4) An accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical 
power source, if electrical service is requested by an APHIS 
representative or an authorized HPI to conduct inspections.
    (5) Appropriate areas adjacent to the inspection area for 
designated horses to wait before and after inspection, and an area to 
be used for detention of horses.


Sec.  11.10  Management responsibilities; operation of horse shows, 
horse exhibitions, and horse sales and auctions.

    (a) At horse shows, horse exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions 
involving Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related breeds 
that perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about 
soring, the management of any such horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction must:
    (1) Notify the Administrator of the event at least 30 days before 
it begins. Notification must be received by that date and may be made 
by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email.\3\ The electronic 
means is strongly preferred. Notification must include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Email notification may be sent to [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The name and location of the horse show, horse exhibition, or 
horse sale or auction;
    (ii) The name, address, phone number (and email address, if 
available) of the manager;
    (iii) The date or dates of the horse show, horse exhibition, or 
horse sale or auction;
    (iv) A copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction program, if any such program has been prepared; and
    (v) The name or names of the APHIS-licensed HPIs scheduled to 
perform inspections at the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, 
should show management choose to engage APHIS-licensed HPIs.
    (2) Ensure that no devices or substances prohibited under Sec.  
11.2 are present in the warm-up area.
    (3) Post the list of persons who are subject to a USDA order 
disqualifying them from participating in horse shows, exhibitions, 
sales, and auctions in a prominent place;
    (4) Check the drivers' licenses or other official photo 
identification of the people entering horses in the horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction against the list noted in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and prevent them from entering their 
horses if they are on the list; and
    (5) Ensure that all horses entered in the horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction are identified. If any horse 
entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction belongs to a 
registry, the registry number and registry records must be provided to 
an authorized HPI or APHIS representative, upon request. Horses must 
also be identified by one of the following methods:
    (i) A description sufficient to identify the individual equine, as 
determined by an authorized HPI or an APHIS representative, including, 
but not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive 
markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present 
(e.g., brands, tattoos, cowlicks, or blemishes); or
    (ii) Electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/11785; 
or
    (iii) An equine passport issued by a State government and accepted 
in the government of the State in which the horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction will occur; or
    (iv) Digital photographs sufficient to identify the individual 
equine, as determined by an authorized HPI or an APHIS representative.
    (b) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, and horse sales and auctions at 
which the management does not designate and appoint HPIs. (1) At horse 
shows, horse exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions involving 
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, and related breeds that 
perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring, 
management shall be responsible for identifying all horses that are 
sore or

[[Page 49135]]

otherwise noncompliant with the Act or the regulations. Management 
shall prohibit the showing, exhibition, sale, offering for sale, or 
auction of any horse that is sore. In instances where a horse is found 
sore during actual participation in the horse show, horse exhibition, 
horse sale, or horse auction, management shall disqualify the horse 
prior to the tying of the class, or completion of the show, exhibition, 
sale, or auction. In each Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or 
related breed class or event at any horse show or exhibition, 
management shall inspect all horses tied first, second, or third, and 
any other horses they may select for inspection, to determine if such 
horses are compliant with the Act or the regulations.
    (2) Copies of the records required under Sec.  11.6(d)(1) shall be 
collected and submitted by management to APHIS within 72 hours after 
the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is over.
    (3) After completing inspection, management shall notify the 
custodian of each horse that is noncompliant with the Act or 
regulations that the horse is disqualified from participating in any 
show, exhibition, sale or auction, or involved with any other action 
under the Act or its regulations along with the reasons for such 
action. Management shall collect the information relating to the 
alleged violation from the custodian.
    (c) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, and horse sales and auctions at 
which the management designates and appoints HPIs. (1) The management 
of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or auction that 
designates and appoints APHIS-licensed HPIs to inspect horses must 
designate and appoint a minimum of 2 HPIs if 150 horses or fewer are 
entered in the event. If more than 150 horses are entered in the horse 
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, the management must 
appoint more than 2 HPIs. The management must also make a farrier 
available to assist in inspections at every horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale and auction.
    (2) The management shall accord authorized HPIs access to all 
records and areas of the grounds of such show, exhibition, sale, or 
auction and the same right to inspect horses and records as is accorded 
to any APHIS representative under this section. Further, management 
shall not take any action which would interfere with or influence the 
HPIs in carrying out his or her duties.
    (3) After an authorized HPI has completed inspection, management 
must prevent tampering with any part of a horse's limbs or hooves in 
such a way that could cause a horse to be sore.
    (4) If management is dissatisfied with the performance of a 
particular HPI, including disagreement with the HPI's finding that a 
horse is sore, management shall not dismiss or otherwise interfere with 
the HPI during the HPI's appointed tour of duty, which is the duration 
of the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. However, 
if management has reason to believe that a horse is sore but it is not 
determined to be sore by the HPI, management shall override the HPI's 
decision and disqualify the horse from participating in the event. 
Management should immediately notify, in writing, the Administrator as 
to why management believes the performance of the HPI was inadequate or 
otherwise unsatisfactory. Management that designates and appoints HPIs 
shall disqualify from showing, exhibition, sale, offering for sale, or 
auction of any horse identified by the HPI or any horse otherwise known 
by management to be sore.
    (5) If an authorized HPI or APHIS representative finds any horse to 
be sore or otherwise noncompliant with the Act or regulations at a 
show, exhibition, sale, or auction, featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, 
Racking Horses, or related breeds, the management must disqualify the 
horse from competing, being exhibited, sold, or auctioned in that show, 
exhibition, sale or auction.


Sec.  11.11  Management responsibilities; records and reporting.

    (a) Records required and disposition thereof. (1) The management 
shall maintain for a period of at least 6 years following the closing 
date of the show, exhibition, or sale or auction, all pertinent records 
containing:
    (i) The dates and place of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse 
sale, or horse auction.
    (ii) The name and address (including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code) of the sponsoring organization.
    (iii) The name and address of the horse show, exhibition, horse 
sale, or horse auction management.
    (iv) The name and address (including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code) of the HPIs employed to conduct inspections 
under Sec.  11.6.
    (v) The name and address (including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code) of each show judge.
    (vi) A copy of each class or sale sheet containing the names of 
horses, the names and addresses (including street address or post 
office box number, and ZIP Code) of horse owners, the exhibitor number 
and class number, or sale number assigned to each horse, the show class 
or sale lot number, and the name and address (including street address 
or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person paying the entry 
fee and entering the horse in a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction.
    (vii) A copy of the official horse show, horse exhibition, horse 
sale, or horse auction program, if any such program has been prepared.
    (viii) The name and identification required in Sec.  11.10(a) of 
each horse, as well as the name and address (including street address 
or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the owner, the trainer, the 
custodian, and the location (including street address and ZIP Code) of 
the home barn or other facility where the horse is stabled.
    (2) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction shall designate a person to maintain the records 
required in this section.
    (3) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse 
sale or auction shall furnish to any APHIS representative, upon 
request, the name and address (including street address or post office 
box number, and ZIP Code) of the person designated by the sponsoring 
organization or manager to maintain the records required by this 
section. Management must provide this information within 30 days of the 
request.
    (b) Inspection of records. The management of any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall permit any authorized HPI or 
APHIS representative, upon request, to examine and make copies of any 
and all records pertaining to any horse, either required in any part of 
the regulations, or otherwise maintained, during ordinary business 
hours or such other times as may be mutually agreed upon. A room, 
table, or other facilities necessary for proper examination of such 
records shall be made available to the APHIS representative or 
authorized HPI.
    (c) Reporting. The reports in this paragraph may be submitted by 
mail, fax, or electronic means such as email.\4\ The electronic means 
is strongly preferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Within 30 days following the conclusion of any horse show, 
horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction containing Tennessee Walking 
Horses, Racking Horses, or related breeds that perform with an 
accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring, the management of 
such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the 
Administrator the information required by paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section for

[[Page 49136]]

each horse disqualified by management or its representatives from being 
shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action. 
If no horses are disqualified, the management shall submit a report so 
stating.
    (2) Within 30 days following the conclusion of any horse show, 
horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction which does not include 
Tennessee Walking Horses, Racking Horses, or related breeds that 
perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring, the 
management of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall inform the 
Administrator of any case where a horse was prohibited by management or 
its representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned 
because it was found to be sore.


Sec.  11.12  Inspection procedures for HPIs.

    (a) Required inspections. (1) The HPI shall physically inspect:
    (i) All horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises 
concerns about soring entered for sale or auction;
    (ii) All horses, regardless of breed, entered in any animated gait 
class (whether under saddle, horse to cart, or otherwise);
    (iii) All horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises 
concerns about soring entered for exhibition before they are admitted 
to be shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned, except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
    (iv) All horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises 
concerns about soring and that are tied first in their class or event; 
and
    (v) Any other horse in a class or event at any horse show or 
exhibition that, in the view of the HPI, raises concerns about soring. 
Such inspection shall be for the purpose of determining whether any 
such horse is sore or the custodian of the horse is otherwise in 
noncompliance with the Act or the regulations in this part. Such 
physical inspection shall be conducted in accordance with the 
inspection procedures provided for in this section.
    (2) When a horse is presented for inspection, its custodian shall 
present the HPI with a record or entry card that includes identifying 
information about the horse pursuant to Sec.  11.10(a)(5). The HPI 
shall observe horses warming up and during actual performances whenever 
possible, and shall inspect any horse in the barn area and show grounds 
as he or she deems necessary at any time to determine whether the 
custodian of any such horse shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned is in 
noncompliance with the Act or regulations.
    (3) Horses that perform with an accentuated gait entered in classes 
in which the horses will not be judged on their gait may not need to be 
inspected if the management submits a class list \5\ to the 
Administrator for review and the Administrator waives inspection for 
the class. The waiver must be requested along with the required 
notification to the Administrator that the event will occur and must be 
granted prior to judging of the class, or the HPI will inspect the 
horses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 3, which includes the email address for 
submitting the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) The HPI shall immediately report, to the management of any 
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, any horse 
which, in his or her opinion, is sore or otherwise in alleged violation 
of the Act or regulations. Such report shall be made before the show 
class or exhibition involving the horse has begun or before the horse 
is offered for sale or auction.
    (5) Horses dismissed from the show arena, whether by a judge, 
steward, or custodian of the horse, must be taken directly to the 
inspection area for follow-up inspection by a HPI or an APHIS 
representative. Horses that suffer serious illness or injury while 
performing and determined by an authorized HPI or APHIS representative 
to require immediate veterinary treatment are not required to return to 
the inspection area at that time.
    (b) Inspection procedures. (1) The HPI must ensure that all tack 
except for a halter and lead rope is removed from the horse during 
inspection, as required in Sec.  11.5(c).
    (2) During the preshow inspection, the HPI shall direct the 
custodian of the horse to lead, walk, and turn the horse in a figure-
eight that allows the HPI to determine whether the horse exhibits a 
gait deficiency. The HPI shall determine whether the horse moves in a 
free and easy manner.
    (3) The HPI shall digitally palpate the front limbs of the horse 
from knee to hoof, with particular emphasis on the fetlocks and 
pasterns. Digital palpation must be of a pressure sufficient to blanch, 
or whiten, the thumb of the inspecting HPI. The HPI shall inspect the 
posterior surface of the pastern by picking up the hoof and examining 
the posterior (flexor) surface. The HPI shall apply digital pressure to 
the pocket (sulcus), including the bulbs of the heel, and continue the 
palpation to the medial and lateral surfaces of the pastern, being 
careful to observe for responses to pain in the horse. While continuing 
to hold onto the pastern, the HPI shall extend the hoof and limb of the 
horse to inspect the front (extensor) surfaces, including the coronary 
band. The HPI may inspect the rear limbs of all horses inspected after 
showing, and may inspect the rear limbs of any horse inspected preshow 
or on the showgrounds when he deems it necessary, except that the HPI 
shall inspect the rear limbs of all horses exhibiting lesions on, or 
unusual movement of, the rear limbs. While carrying out the procedures 
set forth in this paragraph, the HPI shall also inspect the horse to 
determine whether it is compliant with the scar rule in Sec.  11.3, and 
particularly whether there is any evidence of inflammation, edema, 
proliferating granuloma tissue, or other evidence of prior abuse.
    (4) The HPI shall observe and inspect all horses for compliance 
with the provisions set forth in Sec.  11.2.
    (5) The HPI shall instruct the custodian of the horse to control it 
by holding the lead rope approximately 18 inches from the halter. The 
HPI shall not be required to inspect a horse if it is presented in a 
manner that might cause the horse not to react to a HPI's inspection, 
or if whips, cigarette smoke, or other actions or paraphernalia are 
used to distract a horse during inspection. Horses that are not 
presented in a manner to allow their proper inspection, as well as 
unruly or fractious horses, will be prohibited from showing. The HPI 
shall report such incidents to show management and APHIS.
    (c) Inspection logistics. (1) In shows with 150 horses or more are 
entered, an authorized HPI may inspect horses 3 classes ahead of the 
time such horses are to be shown but only if another authorized HPI can 
provide continuous and uninterrupted supervision of the designated 
warm-up area for the inspected horses. In shows with fewer than 150 
horses are entered, the HPI may inspect horses 2 classes ahead of the 
time the inspected horses are to be shown.
    (2) Inspected horses shall be held in a designated area that is 
under observation by an authorized HPI or APHIS representative. Horses 
shall not be permitted to leave the designated warm-up area before 
showing. Only the custodian, the trainer, the rider, authorized HPIs, 
and APHIS representatives shall be allowed in the designated area. 
Guests of management may be permitted in the designated area at the 
discretion of an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.
    (d) Additional inspection procedures. The HPI may carry out 
additional

[[Page 49137]]

visual, physical, or diagnostic inspection procedures as he or she 
deems necessary to determine whether the horse is sore or the horse's 
custodian is otherwise not in compliance with the Act or regulations. 
The HPI may inspect and remove plastic, cotton, or any materials 
wrapped around the limbs of any horse at a horse show, exhibition, 
sale, or auction to determine whether any prohibited foreign substance 
is present. The HPI may require that horseshoes be removed by a farrier 
as part of the inspection. The HPI may use hooftesters on all horses.


Sec.  11.13  Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation 
of certain horses.

    Each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or delivers 
or receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse 
may be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show, horse 
exhibition, or horse sale or auction, shall allow the inspection of 
such horse at any such horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or 
horse auction to determine compliance with the Act and regulations and 
shall furnish to any authorized HPI or APHIS representative upon his or 
her request the following information:
    (a) Name and address (including street address or post office box 
number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and of the shipper, if 
different from the owner or trainer;
    (b) Name and address (including street address or post office box 
number, and ZIP Code) of the horse trainer;
    (c) Name and address (including street address or post office box 
number, and ZIP Code) of the farrier;
    (d) Name and address (including street address or post office box 
number, and ZIP Code) of the carrier transporting the horse, and of the 
driver of the means of conveyance used;
    (e) Origin of the shipment and date thereof; and
    (f) Destination of shipment.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of July 2016.
Elvis S. Cordova,
Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-17648 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P