[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11448-11449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05851]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 50, 51, 71, 76, 77, 78, 86, 93, and 161
[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0044]
RIN 0579-AD65
Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis; Update of General Provisions
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; partial withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are announcing a partial withdrawal of a proposed rule
published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2015, that, if
finalized, would have consolidated the regulations governing bovine
tuberculosis and those governing brucellosis. Specifically, we are
withdrawing those portions of the proposed rule that would have
affected the provisions governing our domestic brucellosis and
tuberculosis programs. We are taking this action after considering the
comments we received following the publication of the proposed rule.
DATES: As of March 27, 2019, the proposed amendments to 9 CFR parts 50,
51, 71, 76, 77, 78, 86, and 161 that were contained in the proposed
rule published December 16, 2015 (80 FR 78462) are withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. C. William Hench, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Cattle Health Center, Strategy and Policy VS, APHIS, 2150
Centre Avenue, Building B-3E20, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117; (970) 494-
7378.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 16, 2015, we published in the
Federal Register (80 FR 78462-78520, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0044) a
proposed rule \1\ to amend the regulations in 9 CFR parts 50, 51, 71,
76, 77, 78, 86, 93, and 161 to consolidate the regulations governing
bovine tuberculosis, and those governing brucellosis. The proposed rule
would have affected both domestic and import regulations for the two
diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the
comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending on
March 15, 2016. We extended the deadline for comments until May 16,
2016, in a document published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016
(81 FR 12832-12833, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0044,). We received a total
of 164 comments by that date. They were from captive cervid producers
and captive cervid breeders' associations, cattle industry groups,
State agriculture departments, State game and fish departments,
veterinarians, representatives of foreign governments, and private
citizens. The commenters raised a number of comments and concerns about
the proposed rule.
The commenters were especially concerned with the proposal to
combine the bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis domestic programs into
a single program for cattle, bison, and captive cervids. The commenters
pointed to differing disease epidemiology, source populations, modes of
transmission, surveillance streams, movement controls, testing, and
management practices.
Commenters were also concerned by our proposal to require States to
submit animal health plans that detail cattle, bison, and captive
cervid demographics in the State, information regarding sources of
bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis in the State, surveillance and
mitigations in the State, and personnel available to enforce the plan.
The commenters expressed concern that the States may lack personnel,
resources, and funding to implement and maintain Animal Health Plans,
based on the proposed requirements.
Commenters expressed concern about our proposal to base State
statuses on whether a State has implemented and is maintaining an
Animal Health Plan instead of prevalence rates, saying that it seemed
to be a move away from disease eradication and international standards,
and pointing out that it would require foreign trading partners to re-
evaluate their requirements for importing U.S. cattle.
We proposed that, if an area had a known source of tuberculosis and
brucellosis that presents a risk, that area could not be accredited or
reaccredited. We further proposed to require whole herd tests and
individual animal tests for captive cervids as a condition of
interstate movement, unless they come from accredited herds for
brucellosis. Many captive cervid producers expressed concern that if
these changes were adopted, they would lose their current
accreditation. Several commenters questioned the need for a national
requirement for what they consider a regional problem. Elk breeders
expressed concern about the cost of this requirement, and stated that
our economic analysis underestimated testing costs.
We proposed that exhibited, rodeo, and event cattle and bison would
have to be tested 60 days prior to initial interstate movement, then at
180 day intervals after initial interstate movement, with limited
exceptions. Many State animal health officials and several industry
groups objected to considering exhibited cattle and bison equivalent to
rodeo and event cattle and bison in terms of disease risk. They stated
that exhibited cattle and bison are, in their experience, a very low
risk for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, and these requirements
could adversely impact regional fairs and exhibitions.
Finally, wildlife and animal health authorities expressed
significant concern about our proposal that, if a State has known
wildlife sources of bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis that pose a risk
of transmission to program animals, the State would have to conduct
surveillance of these source populations in a manner sufficient to
detect brucellosis or tuberculosis in an animal within the source
population. Several animal health officials stated that wildlife
authorities in some States
[[Page 11449]]
are not authorized to conduct testing for bovine tuberculosis or
brucellosis. Others stated they could not compel them to do so. Several
wildlife authorities stated that the surveillance goal was too
stringent, and should be set at a level sufficient to gauge prevalence,
rather than detect an infected animal. Both animal health and wildlife
authorities stated that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
would need to fund this testing in order for it to be conducted.
After considering all the comments we received, we have concluded
that it is necessary to reexamine the proposed changes to the domestic
bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis programs. Therefore, we are
withdrawing the proposed amendments to parts 50, 51, 71, 76, 77, 78,
86, and 161 in our December 16, 2015, proposed rule referenced above.
At this time we intend to continue considering the proposed amendments
to part 93 that govern the importation of cattle with respect to bovine
tuberculosis and brucellosis as we proposed in the December 16, 2015,
proposed rule. The concerns and recommendations of all the commenters
will be considered if any new proposed regulations regarding the
domestic bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis programs are developed.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of March 2019.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05851 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P