[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3320-3330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00505]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 3320]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 86

[Docket No. APHIS-2021-0020]
RIN 0579-AE64


Use of Electronic Identification Eartags as Official 
Identification in Cattle and Bison

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the animal disease traceability 
regulations to require that eartags applied on or after a date 6 months 
(180 days) after publication in the Federal Register of a final rule 
following this proposed rule be both visually and electronically 
readable in order to be recognized for use as official eartags for 
interstate movement of cattle and bison covered under the regulations. 
We are also proposing to clarify certain record retention and record 
access requirements and revise some requirements pertaining to 
slaughter cattle. These proposed changes would enhance the ability of 
Tribal, State and Federal officials, private veterinarians, and 
livestock producers to quickly respond to high-impact diseases 
currently existing in the United States, as well as foreign animal 
diseases that threaten the viability of the U.S. cattle and bison 
industries.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 
20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. 
Enter APHIS-2021-0020 in the Search field. Select the Documents tab, 
then select the Comment button in the list of documents.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to 
Docket No. APHIS-2021-0020, 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 www.regulations.gov or in our reading room, which is 
located in room 1620 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Aaron Scott, Director, National 
Animal Disease Traceability and Veterinary Accreditation Center, 
Strategy & Policy, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 2150 Centre Ave, Fort 
Collins, CO 80526; [email protected]; (970) 494-7249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') Animal 
Disease Traceability (ADT) framework was established to improve the 
ability to trace animals back from slaughter and forward from premises 
where the animals are officially identified, in addition to tracing 
animals' interstate movements. Knowing where diseased and exposed 
animals are, as well as where they have been and when, is indispensable 
to emergency response and ongoing disease control and eradication 
programs. The ability to trace animals accurately and rapidly does not 
prevent disease epidemics, but does allow Tribal, State, and Federal 
veterinarians to contain potentially devastating disease outbreaks 
before they can do substantial damage to the U.S. cattle and bison 
industries. A comprehensive animal disease traceability system is the 
best protection against a devastating disease outbreak.
    Tracing of animals has multiple components, including 
identification of the animal, tracking its movements, discovering other 
exposed animals, and finding the associated records quickly enough to 
implement mitigations to the impact of the disease. Time to find 
records is critical for diseases, such as foot and mouth disease (FMD), 
that may transmit from animal to animal in as little as 24 to 48 hours. 
For other diseases that can have prolonged latency periods and may 
result in a significant number of exposed animals, such as bovine 
tuberculosis and brucellosis, accuracy of data collection and data 
retrieval is important. In either case, consequences of late or 
inaccurate records may result in large financial losses.
    Foreign animal diseases such as FMD have been largely excluded from 
the United States; however, exclusion of every high impact disease 
through every pathway of introduction is likely an unachievable task. 
Costs of incursions vary, but even a small outbreak of FMD would have 
multi-billion dollar impacts on U.S. livestock producers' access to 
export markets with additional losses to production, reproduction, and 
animal population. Other diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis, move 
slowly but may infect many herds before detection. The financial 
consequences of this insidious and incurable disease, which can also 
affect other animals and people, as well as intangible impacts related 
to consequences or loss of a family farm, can be high.
    Jurisdiction and responsibility for controlling diseases that can 
cause significant damage to the livestock industry is divided among 
State, Tribal, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) animal health 
officials. Interstate movement of cattle and bison falls under the 
responsibility of USDA, APHIS, while movements within the State and 
Tribal boundaries fall under their respective governments. There are 
approximately 100 million cattle and bison in the United States, and 
they are likely to make multiple movements through their lifetimes. 
Rapid and accurate recordkeeping for this volume of animals and 
movement is not achievable without electronic systems.
    Eartags are an essential component for animal health officials to 
identify and track the movement of animals that are diseased or exposed 
to disease. Official eartags are approved by APHIS to identify certain 
classes of animals that move interstate or are part of Federal disease 
control and eradication programs. USDA records show that approximately 
11 million official visually readable only, i.e., non-electronic 
identification (EID) eartags were used per year in fiscal years 2017 
through 2021, which corresponds to 11 percent of the national 
population of cattle and bison.

[[Page 3321]]

    Official identification tags may be placed on the animal by the 
animal owner but are more frequently placed at livestock markets or by 
veterinarians who create the movement documents required for the 
interstate travel of the animals. In either case, EID eartags offer a 
number of advantages over non-EID eartags. With non-EID eartags, the 
animal must be physically restrained to allow the eartag number to 
safely be read and transcribed. Often, the eartag must be cleaned 
before the number can accurately be read. Visual eartag numbers may be 
recorded on paper, or manually entered in a database. Errors can occur 
while reading, transcribing, or entering the eartag number into a 
database. Costs to the producers may include that of the tags as well 
as the time for restraining the animals and reading the numbers. 
Alternatively, for EID tags, the numbers may be read visually, 
similarly to the non-EID tags, or may be read without restraint as the 
animal goes past an electronic reader. Once the reader scans the tag, 
the electronically collected tag number can be rapidly and accurately 
transmitted from the reader to a connected electronic database. Since 
the eartag number does not need to be manually read, transcribed, or 
entered in a database, the risk of errors at these steps is eliminated. 
Electronic identification numbers are stored in electronic data 
systems, whereas visual identification numbers may be stored in 
electronic data systems after entry or filed as paper records. Disease 
investigations that involve tracing an animal with electronic records 
take only minutes to hours, while searching paper records for a visual 
eartag number can take days to weeks or longer. Shorter disease 
investigations minimize the impact on individual producers, herds, 
businesses, and communities.
    Currently, the livestock industry uses APHIS-approved EID tags as 
well as other EID tags intended for production management. Official EID 
eartag numbers are read on the same radio frequency as other electronic 
eartags and are quality-tested to last the lifetime of an animal. 
Hence, they serve a dual purpose whether official identification is 
needed or when integrated into production systems.
    APHIS has primary regulatory responsibility to control and 
eradicate communicable diseases of livestock and to prevent the 
introduction and dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock into 
the United States. The animal disease traceability regulations, which 
were set forth in a final rule \1\ published on January 9, 2013 (78 FR 
2040-2075, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091), provide the requirements for 
identification and documentation for certain classes of cattle and 
bison to move interstate. These regulations establish minimum national 
official identification and documentation requirements for the 
traceability of livestock moving interstate. The species covered in the 
regulations include cattle and bison, sheep and goats, swine, horses 
and other equids, captive cervids (e.g., deer and elk), and poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the final rule, the proposed rule, and the comments 
we received on the proposed rule, go to www.regulations.gov and 
enter APHIS-2009-0091 in the Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the enactment of these regulations, APHIS has worked with 
stakeholders to enhance its traceability capacity within the ADT 
program. In January 2017, APHIS staff officers met with State officials 
and APHIS Veterinary Services field officers to gather input on what 
was working well in the traceability program and what gaps remained. A 
report of our findings was published in April 2017 (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/adt-assessment.pdf). Among 
other findings, the report discussed gaps in tracing animals due to the 
challenges of reading and recording numbers from non-EID eartags. A 
similar gap identified was the need for greater efficiency in 
collecting AINs or other official identification numbers of individual 
animals at slaughter and removing those identification numbers from 
future tracing efforts. Eliminating this gap was determined not to be 
feasible with visual-only eartags, but could be achieved at a future 
time with EID eartags.
    On April 4, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR 
16336, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0016) a notice \2\ announcing a series of 
public meetings aimed at soliciting comment on the animal disease 
traceability program. A total of nine public meetings were hosted by 
APHIS between April and July of that year, and an additional meeting 
was hosted by the Kansas Department of Agriculture. As discussed in the 
April 2017 notice, the purpose of the meetings paralleled the prior 
discussion with State officials and APHIS field officers: To ``hear 
from the public about the successes and challenges of the current ADT 
framework.'' We specifically solicited attendance from cattle and bison 
industry members, as well as impacted States and Tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To view the notice, go to www.regulations.gov and enter 
APHIS-2017-0016 in the Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The notice and meetings generated 462 written public comments. A 
working group formed in March of 2017 to plan and attend the public 
meetings was further tasked with listening to the discussions and 
preparing a final report summarizing input from the meetings and 
proposing directions to address gaps in the traceability system. The 
report was presented at the National Institute for Agriculture fall 
public forum in September of 2017 and published in April of 2018 
(https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/adt-summary-program-review.pdf).
    During the remainder of 2017, 2018, and 2019, APHIS personnel 
frequently met with stakeholders to discuss questions and topics that 
arose during the 2017 outreach meetings. In addition to individual and 
industry organization meetings, APHIS officers met with State officials 
as well as industry stakeholders at national public forums including 
the United States Animal Health Association and the National Institute 
for Animal Agriculture forum.
    During this period, cattle and bison organizations provided 
significant and ongoing input on the animal disease traceability 
program. Although not everyone agreed, many stakeholders commented that 
electronic records and electronic identification were of significant 
value and were needed to protect the industry from diseases with 
potential for high economic impacts.
    Under the regulations, official identification devices or methods 
are determined by the APHIS Administrator. An official identification 
device or method is defined in 9 CFR 86.1 of the regulations as ``[a] 
means approved by the Administrator of applying an official 
identification number to an animal of a specific species or associating 
an official identification number with an animal or group of animals of 
a specific species or otherwise officially identifying an animal or 
group of animals.''
    One of the approved identification methods for cattle and bison 
covered by part 86 is an official eartag. An official eartag is defined 
in Sec.  86.1 of the regulations as ``[a]n identification tag approved 
by APHIS that bears an official identification number for individual 
animals. Beginning March 11, 2014, all official eartags manufactured 
must bear an official eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 2015, all 
official eartags applied to animals must bear an official eartag 
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of 
the official

[[Page 3322]]

eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval 
of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and 
have a high retention rate in the animal.'' The other methods of 
official identification of cattle and bison include ``brands registered 
with a recognized brand inspection authority and accompanied by an 
official brand inspection certificate, when agreed to by the shipping 
and receiving State or Tribal animal health authorities; or tattoos and 
other identification methods acceptable to a breed association for 
registration purposes, accompanied by a breed registration certificate, 
when agreed to by the shipping and receiving State or Tribal animal 
health authorities; or Group/lot identification when a group/lot 
identification number (GIN) may be used.'' (See 9 CFR 86.4(a)).
    Historically, APHIS has used non-EID (metal) tags for animal 
identification in disease programs for many decades and has approved 
both non-EID and radio frequency identification (RFID) tags for use as 
official eartags in cattle and bison since 2008.
    While APHIS focuses on interstate movements of livestock, States 
and Tribal Nations remain responsible for the traceability of livestock 
within their jurisdictions. APHIS partners with State veterinary 
officials each year to test the performance of States' animal disease 
traceability systems. (Tribes are free to request such test exercises 
on a voluntary basis and APHIS will report to the Tribes the results of 
any such exercise.) Results of these test exercises, which can be 
viewed on APHIS's traceability web page,\3\ indicate that when State 
veterinary officials are provided an identification number from an 
animal that has been identified with an official identification eartag, 
whether non-EID (e.g., metal or plastic) or electronic, and the number 
has been entered accurately into a data system, States can trace 
animals to any one of these four locations in less than 1 hour: The 
State where an animal was officially identified, the location in-State 
where an animal was officially identified, the State from which an 
animal was shipped out of, and the location in-State that an animal was 
shipped out-of-State from. However, lengthy times or failed traces in 
the test exercises resulted when numbers from non-EID tags were 
transcribed inaccurately, movement records were not readily available, 
or information was only retrievable from labor-intensive paper filing 
systems. Electronic tags and electronic record systems provide a 
significant advantage over non-EID tags by enabling rapid and accurate 
reading and recording of tag numbers and retrieval of traceability 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ADT Trace Performance Metric Report 2013-2022. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/adt-trace-perf-report-2013-2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of greater efficiency in traceability and in furtherance 
of the above-listed program goals, on July 6, 2020, we published in the 
Federal Register (85 FR 40184-40185, Docket No. APHIS-2020-0022) a 
notice \4\ in which we announced our proposal to approve only RFID tags 
as the official eartag for use in interstate movement of cattle and 
bison that are covered under the regulations. Specifically, the notice 
proposed that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ To view the notice, the assessment, and the comments we 
received, go to www.regulations.gov and enter APHIS-2020-0022 in the 
Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Beginning January 1, 2022, USDA would no longer approve 
vendors to use the official USDA shield in production of visual eartags 
or other eartags that do not have RFID components.
     On January 1, 2023, RFID tags would become the only 
identification devices approved as an official eartag for cattle and 
bison pursuant to Sec.  86.4(a)(1)(i).
     For cattle and bison that have official USDA visual 
(metal) tags in place before January 1, 2023, APHIS would recognize the 
visual (metal) tag as an official identification device for the life of 
the animal.
    The notice further clarified that we were proposing no changes to 
the regulations pertaining to, nor proposing to restrict the use of, 
other official identification methods authorized by those regulations 
(such as the use of tattoos and brands when accepted by State Officials 
in the sending and receiving states).
    We solicited comments on the notice for 90 days ending on October 
5, 2020. We received 935 comments by that date from industry groups, 
producers, veterinarians, State departments of agriculture, and 
individuals.
    Many of the commenters representing industry organizations and 
State department of agriculture regulatory officials were supportive of 
the transition and agreed with APHIS that RFID allowed for greater 
efficiency than non-electronic means of identification and furthered 
the goals of the ADT program with regard to animal traceability. We 
also received many comments expressing opposition to the proposal, 
however.
    Many of the commenters opposed to the proposal were concerned with 
the perceived costs imposed on producers and livestock markets of 
having to purchase electronic reading equipment and computer systems. 
We do not agree with the commenters regarding the magnitude of costs to 
the domestic cattle and bison industry. Many of these commenters were 
not aware that the official RFID tags are easily read visually and 
therefore could be used as they are currently using non-EID tags 
without the added expense of purchasing reading equipment. Also, large 
categories of cattle, such as feeder cattle or cull cattle going to 
slaughter, are not subject to the official identification requirements 
and would not require official eartags. We address the costs in greater 
detail in the regulatory impact analysis accompanying this proposed 
rule.
    Other commenters expressed concern about the retention time on the 
animals of RFID eartags, claiming that non-EID eartags were superior in 
that regard. These commenters, however, did not differentiate between 
USDA-approved official tags that must meet quality standards for long-
term retention and other RFID tags intended for unofficial uses. Prior 
to approval by APHIS, official RFID tag manufacturers are required to 
provide data that supports high long-term retention in cattle including 
laboratory testing, field trials, and/or sales data from approvals in 
other countries. Reports of tag retention failures of official tags are 
followed up and may result in removal of the company's approval for the 
tag. From the period between 2013 and 2022, only one company has had 
approval removed due to tag failure. Tags that are not USDA-approved 
for use as official eartags are often intended for feedlot cattle and 
do not require long-term retention. Livestock producers that place the 
short-term tags in cattle other than feeders can expect high loss of 
tags.
    Other commenters who opposed the transition to RFID eartags 
questioned our legal authority under the Administrative Procedure Act 
(5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.) to change the eartag requirements using a 
notice-based procedure rather than rulemaking. Some of these commenters 
suggested that implementing the proposed RFID requirement would 
effectively change the regulations in part 86, as well as the domestic 
animal disease-program regulations in other parts of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, none of which specify that RFID eartags are the 
only eartags that we recognize as official for interstate movement of 
cattle and bison. Some commenters expressed opposition to mandatory 
animal identification and government regulations in general.

[[Page 3323]]

    Our proposal to implement the transition through a notice-based 
process was informed by our view that we did not need to amend the 
regulations. As noted above, we define, in Sec.  86.1 and elsewhere in 
the regulations, an official eartag as ``an identification tag approved 
by APHIS that bears an official identification number for individual 
animals.'' The definition also states that the ``design, size, shape, 
color, and other characteristics of the official eartag will depend on 
the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the Administrator.'' 
In our view at the time, that definition provided sufficient 
flexibility to enable us to require the use of RFID eartags when moving 
cattle and bison interstate.
    After reviewing the comments on the July 2020 notice, however, we 
determined that withdrawing our recognition of visual-only (non-EID) 
eartags as official eartags for cattle and bison moving interstate 
would constitute a change in the application of our regulatory 
requirements of sufficient magnitude to merit rulemaking rather than 
the notice-based process we originally envisioned. We also determined 
that the goal of maximizing transparency and public participation would 
also best be served through rulemaking in this instance. Therefore, on 
March 23, 2021, we issued a stakeholder announcement indicating that we 
would not finalize the notice, and that we ``would use the rulemaking 
process for further action related to the proposal.'' \5\ Should we 
propose another change of similar magnitude and scope to our 
requirements for official eartags for cattle and bison that move 
interstate at some future date, we would likewise use rulemaking for 
that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2021/rfid-traceability-rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule supersedes the July 2020 notice. In the notice's 
stead, we are proposing to amend the regulations to recognize as 
official eartags for cattle and bison that currently require them for 
interstate movement only those eartags that are readable both visually 
and electronically. To allow adequate time for producers to comply with 
the proposed requirements, the new proposed effective date would be a 
date 6 months (180 days) after the publication date in the Federal 
Register of a final rule following this proposed rule. As we stated in 
the notice, non-EID (metal) tags applied to cattle and bison before 
that date would continue to be recognized as official identification 
for the life of the animals. We believe that allowing 6 months (180 
days) after publication of a final rule for implementation is 
appropriate for the following reasons: The primary change proposed is 
the use of EID eartags rather than non-EID tags for official use. 
Because all EID tags are readable visually, however, no modifications 
are necessary to facilities or equipment currently in use. We would 
also note that animals that would not be impacted by the transition to 
EID constitute about 89 percent of the national herd of approximately 
100 million cattle and bison. Animals not impacted would include 
animals that do not cross State lines or those already tagged with 
official EID, as well as animals exempted under the rule such as beef 
cattle and bison under the age of 18 months and animals going to 
slaughter or through an APHIS-approved market and then to slaughter.
    There are a few aspects of this proposed rule that differ from the 
July 2020 notice, however. In this proposed rule, as opposed to the 
July 2020 notice and the existing regulations in part 86, we refer to 
electronic identification (EID) tags rather than to RFID tags. 
Currently, the only official electronically readable identification 
tags are RFID tags; however, at some future time there may be other 
electronically readable technology. APHIS' goal is to rapidly and 
accurately collect the tag numbers and be able to adapt to 
technological developments, not to codify RFID technology as the only 
technology option for traceability.
    We are also proposing several other changes to part 86 aimed at 
clarifying the regulations. These include revising the definition of 
dairy cattle and amending certain provisions pertaining to 
recordkeeping, and the disposition of slaughter cattle. The specific 
changes we are proposing are discussed in detail below.

Definitions

    The current definition of an approved tagging site is: ``A 
premises, authorized by APHIS, State, or Tribal animal health 
officials, where livestock may be officially identified on behalf of 
their owner or the person in possession, care, or control of the 
animals when they are brought to the premises.'' We would revise the 
definition of approved tagging site to read as follows: ``A premises, 
authorized by APHIS, State, or Tribal animal health officials, where 
livestock without official identification may be transferred to have 
official identification applied on behalf of their owner or the person 
in possession, care, or control of the animals when they are brought to 
the premises.'' This proposed definition, while very similar to the 
existing one, offers greater clarity regarding the nature of an 
approved tagging site, specifying that such sites are where official 
identification tags are physically applied to animals.
    The current definition of dairy cattle is: ``All cattle, regardless 
of age or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) used to produce 
milk or other dairy products for human consumption, including, but not 
limited to, Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking 
Shorthorn, and Red and Whites.'' We are proposing to revise the 
definition of dairy cattle to read as follows: ``All cattle, regardless 
of age or sex, breed, or current use, that are born on a dairy farm or 
are of a breed(s) used to produce milk or other dairy products for 
human consumption, or cross bred calves of any breed that are born to 
dairy cattle including, but not limited to, Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, 
Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn, and Red and Whites. This 
proposed definition differs from the existing one in that it includes 
not only certain breeds that are reared specifically to produce milk or 
other dairy products but also other cattle that are reared under the 
same management practices as purebred dairy cattle. Under part 86, 
dairy cattle have different requirements for official identification 
and movement documentation from beef cattle because of the increased 
risks that dairy animals have for contracting diseases early in life. 
Dairy farm management practices result in higher risk of disease 
transmission and include practices such as pooling colostrum from 
multiple cows for many calves, commingling calves at different 
locations during their lifetimes, and movement to many destinations. 
Because the increased disease risk is due to the management of the 
cattle rather than their genetic makeup as a dairy breed, it is 
necessary to change the definition accordingly. We welcome comments 
from the public on this issue.
    We are proposing some editorial and formatting changes to the 
definition of interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). 
The existing definition contains requirements pertaining only to paper 
ICVIs, but electronic ICVIs are now commonly used and accepted across 
the United States for animal movement. Our proposed editorial changes 
would account for electronic ICVIs as well as paper ones. The proposed 
formatting changes would make the definition clearer and easier for 
users to understand. Substantively, however, the

[[Page 3324]]

revised definition would not otherwise change the definition.
    We are proposing to add to Sec.  86.1 a definition of Official 
Animal Identification Device Standards (OAIDS). The proposed definition 
would state that the OAIDS is a document providing further information 
regarding official identification device recordkeeping requirements 
contained in the regulations. The definition would also indicate that 
when APHIS updates or modifies the standards, an announcement will be 
made to the public by means of a notice published in the Federal 
Register. The notice-based process would provide the regulatory 
flexibility needed to account for rapid advances in EID technology. The 
OAIDS replaces the old title for the document, the Animal Disease 
Traceability General Standards document. In our view, the new title 
more accurately reflects the content of the document, which focuses on 
official identification devices. There would also be some substantive 
changes to the document, as discussed below.
    In broad terms, the proposed OAIDS, like the existing Standards 
document, would provide guidelines, technical standards, and 
specifications for tag manufacturers requesting APHIS approval of new 
official identification devices. The requirements contained in both 
documents reflect our recognition of the importance of quality in tag 
design, safety, and retention. We have determined, however, that some 
of our current requirements may be burdensome and inhibit manufacturers 
seeking APHIS approval of new official identification devices. 
Therefore, the proposed OAIDS would streamline the process for approval 
of new EID tags and reduce the burden for development of new tags. 
Specific changes would include the following:
     Accepting EID device testing equivalent to International 
Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) testing and allowing APHIS to 
consider requests, on a case-by-case basis, for approval of alternative 
field trials or eartags with previously generated verifiable data if 
equivalency to the standards is demonstrated;
     Modifying the field trial requirements by reducing 
timelines for the three approval statuses (trial, preliminary, and 
conditional), reducing the number of required field trial locations, 
and reducing the number of cattle and bison required for field trials; 
and
     Reducing the timeframe before allowing unlimited sales of 
devices from a minimum of 24 months to a minimum of 12 months if 
devices meet the required performance standards.
    In addition, the OAIDS would be updated to correspond with the 
changes in this proposed rule. These updates would include removing 
some language that no longer applies pertaining to National Uniform 
Eartagging Standards (NUES) metal tags, which are non-EID tags, and 
adding a new section on USDA backtags. There would be additional, 
nonsubstantive edits made to clarify wording and to format tables 
consistently.
    We are proposing to revise the definition of official eartag to 
read as ``An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an 
official identification number for individual animals. The design, 
size, shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag 
will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a 
high retention rate in the animal.'' This proposed definition is 
largely the same as the existing one, except for the removal of the 
following language: ``Beginning March 11, 2014, all official eartags 
manufactured must bear an official eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 
2015, all official eartags applied to animals must bear an official 
eartag shield.'' Those dates are no longer relevant. There are still 
many eartags in use that were grandfathered in under the January 2013 
final rule because they were applied to animals prior to then; however, 
all eartags that have been applied to cattle and bison since the 
implementation dates provided in the current regulations meet the above 
requirements. A list of currently approved eartags is available at 
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/ADT_device_ain.pdf.

Recordkeeping

    The existing recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  86.3 do not 
address such issues as record accuracy, quality, completeness, 
availability, and accessibility. In the case of a fast-moving disease, 
records that are not readily available to enable the tracing of 
diseased or exposed animals in adequate time to contain the outbreak 
provide little value. We are therefore proposing to revise Sec.  86.3 
to address these deficiencies. The proposed changes are discussed in 
detail below.
    Current Sec.  86.3(a) states that any State, Tribe, accredited 
veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes official 
identification devices must maintain for 5 years a record of the names 
and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were distributed. To 
address the issues of availability and accessibility, we are proposing 
to add a requirement to that paragraph that official identification 
device distribution records must be entered by the person distributing 
the devices into the Tribal, State, or Federal databases designated by 
each government entity to meet their tag tracing requirements. States 
and Tribal governments and accredited veterinarians may also use APHIS' 
tag manager database at no cost. The revised paragraph would also 
include a statement indicating that OAIDS would contain more specific 
details on how to meet the requirements of Sec.  86.3 and which parties 
would be responsible for meeting them.
    The requirements contained in current paragraph (b), pertaining to 
record retention requirements for ICVIs or alternate documentation, 
would appear under paragraph (c) in this proposed rule. We are 
proposing to add a new paragraph (b), which would state that records of 
official identification devices applied by a federally accredited 
veterinarian to a client animal must be recorded in a readily 
accessible record system. This may be the veterinarian's medical 
records system or comparable means of record management. Alternately, 
the veterinarian may use APHIS' tag management database at no cost to 
record tag distributions. This proposed requirement would help to 
ensure that such records are available to APHIS when needed for 
traceback investigations.
    Finally, we would add a new paragraph (d) to Sec.  86.3 stating 
that records required under paragraphs (a) through (c) of the section 
would have to be maintained by the responsible person or entity and be 
of sufficient accuracy, quality, and completeness to demonstrate 
compliance with all conditions and requirements under part 86. The 
paragraph would further state that, during normal business hours, APHIS 
must be allowed access to all records, to include visual inspection and 
reproduction (e.g., photocopying, digital reproduction). Because 
disease tracing may involve multiple movements of animals among many 
locations and persons, prolonged retrieval of tracing information can 
create significant delays in the containment of serious threats to the 
livestock industry. For this reason, the responsible person or entity 
must submit to APHIS all reports and notices containing the information 
specified within 48 hours of receipt. We welcome comments from the 
public on this proposed timeline.

[[Page 3325]]

Official Identification

    We are proposing to revise Sec.  86.4(a) introductory text by 
adding a sentence stating that additional information on official 
identification devices, methods, and the approval process can be found 
in the OAIDS.
    We are proposing to revise Sec.  86.4(a)(1)(i) to add the 
requirement, discussed above, that beginning 6 months (180 days) after 
the publication date of a final rule following this proposed rule, all 
official eartags sold for or applied to cattle and bison must be 
readable both visually and electronically. This requirement would 
enhance our traceback investigation capabilities because, as discussed 
in greater detail above, EID eartags and electronic recordkeeping allow 
for greater efficiency and accuracy than do non-EID eartags and paper 
records. EID tags enable producers or officials to capture accurately 
animal identification numbers almost instantly, without the need for 
animal restraint, and to transmit those numbers to a connected 
electronic database. The use of such tags, therefore, facilitates 
electronic recordkeeping, which, however, would not be required under 
this proposed rule.
    The existing regulations in Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(ii) allow cattle to 
move interstate to an approved livestock market and then to slaughter 
or directly to slaughter without official identification. Current Sec.  
86.4(b)(1)(ii)(C) stipulates that the cattle or bison must be 
identified if held for more than 3 days. The existing regulations are 
silent on identification requirements for slaughter cattle or bison 
that are not held at slaughter or held at slaughter for 3 or fewer days 
and then move to a new location. As noted earlier, difficulties in 
tracking animals leaving slaughter channels have been identified by 
State officials as a major gap in traceability, because cattle and 
bison may move to slaughter without official identification or ICVIs. 
If they leave the slaughter channel, they may become untraceable.
    We are therefore proposing to add paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) to Sec.  
86.4. The paragraph would read as follows:
     Cattle and bison leaving a slaughter establishment may 
only be moved to another recognized slaughter establishment or approved 
feedlot and can only be sold/re-sold as slaughter cattle and must be 
accompanied by an owner-shipper statement in accordance with Sec.  
86.5(c)(1). Information listed on the owner-shipper statement must 
include the name and address of the slaughter establishment from which 
the animals left, the official identification numbers, as defined in 
Sec.  86.1, correlated with the USDA backtag number (if available), the 
name of the destination slaughter establishment, or approved feedlot 
(as defined in 9 CFR 77.5) to which the animals are being shipped.
    These proposed requirements clarify that the animals must stay 
within the intended terminal slaughter channels but may be moved to an 
additional slaughter plant or approved feedlot with appropriate 
documentation and identification.
    Current Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(iii) lists the following categories of 
cattle and bison as covered by the official identification requirements 
for interstate movement:
     All sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or 
over;
     All female dairy cattle of any age and all dairy males 
born after March 11, 2013;
     Cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo or recreational 
events; and
     Cattle and bison of any age used for shows or exhibitions.
    Because, as described earlier, we are proposing to amend the 
definition of dairy cattle to reflect the management practices of the 
premises on which the animals are raised, we would revise paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii)(B) so that the official identification requirements would 
apply to all dairy cattle, including offspring of dairy cattle, rather 
all females and all males born after March 11, 2013. There exists the 
possibility that as a result of these proposed changes, more animals 
may by subject to the official identification requirements for 
interstate movement than are currently. As we note in the economic 
analysis accompanying this proposed rule, we are seeking public comment 
on this issue.
    Currently, paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  86.4 allows the application of 
either a non-EID or an RFID eartag with an animal identification number 
(AIN) having an 840 prefix to animals already tagged with National 
Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) tags and/or brucellosis vaccination 
eartags. We are proposing to revise that paragraph to state that a 
visually and electronically readable official eartag may be applied to 
animals currently identified with non-EID official eartags or 
vaccination tags. Our proposed revision would codify the EID eartag 
requirement and provide the regulatory flexibility to allow us to 
account for the development of new EID technologies. In order to allow 
for the possibility that different numbering systems may be developed 
and used in the future on EID eartags, the revised paragraph would not 
specify that the visually and electronically readable eartag would have 
to have an AIN with an 840 prefix and would not refer specifically to 
NUES eartags.
    We are proposing to remove Sec.  86.4(c)(4), which states that a 
brucellosis vaccination visual eartag with a NUES number may be applied 
in accordance with the regulations in 9 CFR part 78 to an animal that 
is already officially identified with one or more official eartags 
under this part. As a result of this rulemaking, the visual, i.e., non-
EID, brucellosis NUES tag would no longer be allowed as official 
identification under part 86, which eliminates the need for the 
paragraph.
    Throughout current Sec.  86.4(e), there are references to RFID 
devices. For reasons discussed above, proposed Sec.  86.4(e) would 
refer to EID devices instead.

Documentation

    Current Sec.  86.5(c)(7)(ii) states that, with certain exceptions, 
the official identification numbers of cattle or bison moving 
interstate must be recorded on the ICVI or alternate documentation 
unless the cattle and bison that are sexually intact and under 18 
months of age or are steers or spayed heifers. One of those exceptions 
covers sexually intact dairy cattle, i.e., recording of official 
identification numbers is required when such cattle are moved 
interstate. We are proposing to amend that paragraph by removing the 
qualifier ``sexually intact.'' This proposed change accords with the 
change we are proposing to the definition of dairy cattle, as discussed 
earlier, and our view of the risks associated with such cattle.
    We are not proposing to make any other substantive changes to Sec.  
86.5, but we would reorganize the section such that the documentation 
requirements, which are listed by species, would be ordered in a manner 
consistent with other sections of part 86. We are also proposing to 
update the terminology in this section, as discussed under the heading 
Miscellaneous below.

Changes to Other Parts of the Regulations

    In 9 CFR parts 71, 77, and 78, respectively, we are proposing to 
revise definitions of official eartag and interstate certificate of 
veterinary inspection (ICVI) to correspond with the changes to the 
definitions that we are proposing for part 86.

Miscellaneous

    Sections 86.3, 86.4, and 86.5 contain numerous references to 
``equines.'' To make our terminology consistent with current usage, we 
propose to substitute ``equids'' or ``equine species,'' as appropriate, 
in each of those instances.

[[Page 3326]]

Executive Orders 12866, 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 website (see ADDRESSES above for instructions 
for accessing Regulations.gov).
    We are proposing to amend the animal disease traceability 
regulations to recognize only eartags that are both visually and 
electronically readable as official eartags for use for interstate 
movement of cattle and bison that are covered under the regulations. We 
are also proposing to clarify certain record retention and record 
access requirements. These proposed changes would enhance the ability 
of State, Federal, and private veterinarians, and livestock producers 
to quickly respond to high-impact diseases currently existing in the 
United States, as well as foreign animal diseases that threaten the 
viability of the U.S. cattle and bison industries. The benefits of 
animal disease traceability include: Enhancing the ability of the 
United States to regionalize and compartmentalize animal health issues, 
minimizing the costs of disease outbreaks, and enabling the 
reestablishment of foreign and domestic market access with minimum 
delay following an animal disease event.
    APHIS conducted a benefit-cost analysis to determine how the 
transition to electronic identification (EID) tags would affect the 
cattle and bison industries. Our analysis suggests that approximately 
11 million cattle are currently tagged with official non-EID eartags 
per year. The proposed rule would not change the number of cattle 
tagged, but it would increase the costs associated with tagging. The 
estimated total average annual cost of purchasing approximately 11 
million EID tags, instead of the non-EID tags, is approximately $26.1 
million dollars per year, or $30.45 per cattle or bison operation.
    RFID technology, a type of electronic identification, has been 
available in the livestock industry for many years. APHIS has evaluated 
the cost structure of different RFID technologies, commonly known as 
FDX and HDX. Both technologies work well and have similar qualities. 
This report describes the cost structure of these EID eartags. We 
provide 10 years of historic population levels for cattle and bison in 
order to provide the reader with a range of cost estimates based upon a 
fluctuating cattle and bison population.
    EID technology is a vital component to efficient and accurate 
traceability of cattle and bison. It benefits stakeholders by 
significantly reducing the numbers of animals and response time 
involved in a disease investigation.
    One of the most significant benefits of the proposed rule would be 
the enhanced ability of the United States to regionalize and 
compartmentalize animal disease outbreaks more quickly. Regionalization 
is the concept of separating subpopulations of animals in order to 
maintain a specific health status in one or more disease-free regions 
or zones. This risk-based process can help to mitigate the adverse 
economic effects of a disease outbreak. Traceability of animals is 
necessary to form these zones that facilitate reestablishment of 
foreign and domestic market access with minimum delay in the wake of an 
animal disease event. Having an EID system in place would, therefore, 
minimize not only the spread of disease but also the trade impacts an 
outbreak may have.

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. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will 
be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and 
(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may 
file suit in court challenging this rule.

Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 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.
    APHIS has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, may 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Tribes, and that 
affording Tribes an opportunity for consultation is therefore 
warranted. Accordingly, APHIS provided a webinar to Tribal nations on 
October 27, 2021, to notify Tribes of this rulemaking and solicit 
consultation. The Tribal leaders welcomed the presentation and 
requested a follow up webinar, which was presented June 23, 2022. APHIS 
met in person with representatives of the Indian Nation Conservation 
Alliance (INCA) in October 2022, to give additional updates. INCA is an 
alliance of Tribal conservation districts covering most of the western 
half of the United States. APHIS will work with the Office of Tribal 
Relations to ensure that additional outreach occurs in 202.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the reporting, recordkeeping, and 
third-party disclosure requirements described in this proposed rule are 
currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
OMB control number 0579-0327.
    The trace/test exercises referenced on earlier in this document are 
conducted as part of APHIS' ADT cooperative agreements with State, 
territorial, and Tribal governments. The existing collection referenced 
above (0579-0327) covers the cooperative agreements, including 
associated recordkeeping. Under the cooperative agreements, State, 
territorial, and Tribal governments must, each quarter, report 
successful completion of the goals and

[[Page 3327]]

objectives outlined in the agreements. This includes evaluating 
performance, acknowledge current tracing capabilities, and identifying 
traceability risks within the State, Tribe, or territory; governments 
must conduct test exercises to evaluate performance and identify risks. 
Governmental entities must also submit cooperative agreement ``road 
maps'' that outline at least four animal disease traceability 
performance measures. APHIS tracks governmental entity recordkeeping 
for cooperative agreement paperwork as part of 0579-0327.

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 Mr. Joseph 
Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Lists of Subjects

9 CFR Part 71

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

9 CFR Part 77

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

9 CFR Part 78

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

9 CFR Part 86

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Livestock, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 71, 77, 78, and 86 as 
follows:

PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  71.1 by revising the definition of ``Official eartag'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  71.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears 
an official identification number for individual animals. The design, 
size, shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag 
will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a 
high retention rate in the animal.
* * * * *

PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS

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

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

0
4. Amend Sec.  77.2, by revising the definitions of ``Interstate 
certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI)'' and ``Official eartag'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  77.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official 
document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian 
certifying the inspection of animals in preparation for interstate 
movement.
    (1) The ICVI must show:
    (i) The species of animals covered by the ICVI;
    (ii) The number of animals covered by the ICVI;
    (iii) The purpose for which the animals are to be moved;
    (iv) The address at which the animals were loaded for interstate 
movement;
    (v) The address to which the animals are destined; and
    (vi) The names of the consignor and the consignee and their 
addresses if different from the address at which the animals were 
loaded or the address to which the animals are destined.
    (vii) Additionally, unless the species-specific requirements for 
ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI must list the official 
identification number of each animal, except as provided in paragraph 
(2) of this definition, or group of animals moved that is required to 
be officially identified, or, if an alternative form of identification 
has been agreed upon by the sending and receiving States, the ICVI must 
include a record of that identification. If animals moving under a GIN 
also have individual official identification, only the GIN must be 
listed on the ICVI. An ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is 
not officially identified if official identification is required. If 
the animals are not required by the regulations to be officially 
identified, the ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the 
cattle and bison do not belong to one of the classes of cattle and 
bison to which the official identification requirements of this part 
apply). If the animals are required to be officially identified but the 
identification number does not have to be recorded on the ICVI, the 
ICVI must state that all animals to be moved under the ICVI are 
officially identified.
    (2) As an alternative to recording individual animal identification 
on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving State or Tribe, another 
document may be attached to provide this information, but only under 
the following conditions:
    (i) The document must be a State form or APHIS form that requires 
individual identification of animals or a printout of official 
identification numbers generated by computer or other means;
    (ii) A legible copy of the document must be attached to the 
original and each copy of the ICVI;
    (iii) Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be 
moved with the ICVI. The document must not contain any information 
pertaining to other animals; and
    (iv) The following information must be included in the 
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI:
    (A) The name of the document; and
    (B) Either the unique serial number on the document or both the 
name of the person who prepared the document and the date the document 
was signed.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears 
an official identification number for individual animals. The design, 
size, shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag 
will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a 
high retention rate in the animal.
* * * * *

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

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

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

0
6. Amend Sec.  78.1 by revising the definitions of ``Interstate 
certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI)'' and ``Official eartag'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  78.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official 
document

[[Page 3328]]

issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian 
certifying the inspection of animals in preparation for interstate 
movement.
    (1) The ICVI must show:
    (i) The species of animals covered by the ICVI;
    (ii) The number of animals covered by the ICVI;
    (iii) The purpose for which the animals are to be moved;
    (iv) The address at which the animals were loaded for interstate 
movement;
    (v) The address to which the animals are destined; and
    (vi) The names of the consignor and the consignee and their 
addresses if different from the address at which the animals were 
loaded or the address to which the animals are destined.
    (vii) Additionally, unless the species-specific requirements for 
ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI must list the official 
identification number of each animal, except as provided in paragraph 
(2) of this definition, or group of animals moved that is required to 
be officially identified, or, if an alternative form of identification 
has been agreed upon by the sending and receiving States, the ICVI must 
include a record of that identification. If animals moving under a GIN 
also have individual official identification, only the GIN must be 
listed on the ICVI. An ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is 
not officially identified if official identification is required. If 
the animals are not required by the regulations to be officially 
identified, the ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the 
cattle and bison do not belong to one of the classes of cattle and 
bison to which the official identification requirements of this part 
apply). If the animals are required to be officially identified but the 
identification number does not have to be recorded on the ICVI, the 
ICVI must state that all animals to be moved under the ICVI are 
officially identified.
    (2) As an alternative to recording individual animal identification 
on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving State or Tribe, another 
document may be attached to provide this information, but only under 
the following conditions:
    (i) The document must be a Tribal or State form or APHIS form that 
requires individual identification of animals or a printout of official 
identification numbers generated by computer or other means;
    (ii) A legible copy of the document must be attached to the 
original and each copy of the ICVI;
    (iii) Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be 
moved with the ICVI. The document must not contain any information 
pertaining to other animals; and
    (iv) The following information must be included in the 
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI:
    (A) The name of the document; and
    (B) Either the unique serial number on the document or both the 
name of the person who prepared the document and the date the document 
was signed.
* * * * *
    Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears 
an official identification number for individual animals. The design, 
size, shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag 
will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a 
high retention rate in the animal.
* * * * *

PART 86--ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY

0
7. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

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

0
8. Amend Sec.  86.1 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Approved tagging site'', ``Dairy 
cattle'', and ``Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection 
(ICVI)'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Official Animal 
Identification Device Standards (OAIDS)''; and
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Official eartag''.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  86.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Approved tagging site. A premises, authorized by APHIS, State, or 
Tribal animal health officials, where livestock without official 
identification may be transferred to have official identification 
applied on behalf of their owner or the person in possession, care, or 
control of the animals when they are brought to the premises.
* * * * *
    Dairy cattle. All cattle, regardless of age or sex, breed, or 
current use, that are born on a dairy farm or of a breed(s) used to 
produce milk or other dairy products for human consumption, or cross 
bred calves of any breed that are born to dairy cattle including, but 
not limited to, Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, 
Milking Shorthorn, and Red and Whites.
* * * * *
    Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official 
document issued by a Federal, State, or Tribal government, or an 
accredited veterinarian, certifying the inspection of animals in 
preparation for interstate movement.
    (1) The ICVI must show:
    (i) The species of animals covered by the ICVI;
    (ii) The number of animals covered by the ICVI;
    (iii) The purpose for which the animals are to be moved;
    (iv) The address at which the animals were loaded for interstate 
movement;
    (v) The address to which the animals are destined; and
    (vi) The names of the consignor and the consignee and their 
addresses if different from the address at which the animals were 
loaded or the address to which the animals are destined.
    (vii) Additionally, unless the species-specific requirements for 
ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI must list the official 
identification number of each animal, except as provided in paragraph 
(2) of this definition, or group of animals moved that is required to 
be officially identified, or, if an alternative form of identification 
has been agreed upon by the sending and receiving States, the ICVI must 
include a record of that identification. If animals moving under a GIN 
also have individual official identification, only the GIN must be 
listed on the ICVI. An ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is 
not officially identified if official identification is required. If 
the animals are not required by the regulations to be officially 
identified, the ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the 
cattle and bison do not belong to one of the classes of cattle and 
bison to which the official identification requirements of this part 
apply). If the animals are required to be officially identified but the 
identification number does not have to be recorded on the ICVI, the 
ICVI must state that all animals to be moved under the ICVI are 
officially identified.
    (2) As an alternative to recording individual animal identification 
on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving State or Tribe, another 
document may be attached to provide this information, but only under 
the following conditions:
    (i) The document must be a State form or APHIS form that requires 
individual identification of animals or a printout of official 
identification numbers generated by computer or other means;
    (ii) A legible copy of the document must be attached to the 
original and each copy of the ICVI;
    (iii) Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be 
moved with

[[Page 3329]]

the ICVI. The document must not contain any information pertaining to 
other animals; and
    (iv) The following information must be included in the 
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI:
    (A) The name of the document; and
    (B) Either the unique serial number on the document or both the 
name of the person who prepared the document and the date the document 
was signed.
* * * * *
    Official Animal Identification Device Standards (OAIDS). A document 
providing further information regarding the official identification 
device recordkeeping requirements of this part, and technical 
descriptions, specifications, and details under which APHIS would 
approve identification devices for official use. Updates or 
modifications to the Standards document will be announced to the public 
by means of a notice published in the Federal Register.
    Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears 
an official identification number for individual animals. The design, 
size, shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag 
will depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a 
high retention rate in the animal.
* * * * *
0
9. Revise Sec.  86.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  86.3  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Any State, Tribe, accredited veterinarian, or other person or 
entity who distributes official identification devices must maintain 
for 5 years a record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the 
devices were distributed. Official identification device distribution 
records must be entered by the person distributing the devices into the 
State or Federal database designated by APHIS. Additional guidance on 
meeting these recordkeeping requirements is found in the OAIDS.
    (b) Records of official identification devices applied by a 
federally accredited veterinarian to a client animal must be kept in a 
readily accessible record system.
    (c) Approved livestock facilities must keep any ICVIs or alternate 
documentation that is required by this part for the interstate movement 
of covered livestock that enter the facility on or after March 11, 
2013. For poultry and swine, such documents must be kept for at least 2 
years, and for cattle and bison, sheep and goats, cervids, and equids, 
5 years.
    (d) Records required under paragraphs (a) through (c) of this 
section must be maintained by the responsible person or entity and must 
be of sufficient accuracy, quality, and completeness to demonstrate 
compliance with all conditions and requirements under this part. During 
normal business hours, APHIS must be allowed access to all records, to 
include visual inspection and reproduction (e.g., photocopying, digital 
reproduction). The responsible person or entity must submit to APHIS 
all reports and notices containing the information specified within 48 
hours of receipt of request or earlier if warranted by an emergency 
disease response.
0
10. Amend Sec.  86.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1)(i);
0
b. Removing in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (iv) the word ``equine'' each 
time it appears and adding in its place the word ``equid'';
0
c. Removing in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) the words ``to the equine'' and 
adding in their place the words ``into the equid'';
0
d. Removing in paragraph (a)(2)(v)the word ``equines'' and adding in 
their place the word ``equids'';
0
e. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(B), (b)(4) introductory text, and 
(c)(3);
0
g. Removing paragraph (c)(4);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(iii) and (iv); and
0
i. Adding in paragraph (e)(2)(iv), by adding the words ``or other EID'' 
between the words ``RFID'' and ``eartag''.
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  86.4  Official identification.

    (a) Official identification devices and methods. The Administrator 
has approved the following official identification devices or methods 
for the species listed. The Administrator may authorize the use of 
additional devices or methods for a specific species if he or she 
determines that such additional devices or methods will provide for 
adequate traceability. Additional guidance on official identification 
devices, methods, and the approval process is found in the Official 
Animal Identification Device Standards (OAIDS) document.
    (1) * * *
    (i) For an official eartag, beginning [Date 180 days after the date 
of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register], all official 
eartags sold for or applied to cattle and bison must be readable both 
visually and electronically (EID);
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Cattle and bison leaving a slaughter establishment may only be 
moved to another recognized slaughter establishment or approved feedlot 
and can only be sold/re-sold as slaughter cattle, and must be 
accompanied by an owner-shipper statement in accordance with Sec.  
86.5(c)(1). Information listed on the document must include the name 
and address of the slaughter establishment from which the animals left, 
the official identification numbers, as defined in Sec.  86.1, 
correlated with the USDA backtag number (if available), the name of the 
destination slaughter establishment, or approved feedlot (as defined in 
Sec.  77.5 of this subchapter) to which the animals are being shipped.
    (iii) * * *
    (B) All dairy cattle;
* * * * *
    (4) Horses and other equids. Horses and other equids moving 
interstate must be officially identified prior to the interstate 
movement, using an official identification device or method listed in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section unless:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) A visually and electronically readable eartag may be applied to 
an animal that is already officially identified with one or more non-
EID official eartags and/or a non-EID official vaccination eartag used 
for brucellosis. The person applying the new visually and 
electronically readable eartag must record the date the eartag is 
applied to the animal and the official identification numbers of both 
official eartags and must maintain those records for 5 years.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Malfunction of the electronic component of an electronically 
readable (EID) device; or
    (iv) Incompatibility or inoperability of the electronic component 
of an EID device with the management system or unacceptable 
functionality of the management system due to use of an EID device.
* * * * *
0
11. Revise Sec.  86.5 to read as follows:


Sec.  86.5  Documentation requirements for interstate movement of 
covered livestock.

    (a) Responsible persons and required documentation. The persons 
responsible for animals leaving a premises for interstate movement must

[[Page 3330]]

ensure that the animals are accompanied by an interstate certificate of 
veterinary inspection (ICVI) or other document required by this part 
for the interstate movement of animals.
    (b) Forwarding of documents. (1) The APHIS representative, State or 
Tribal representative, or accredited veterinarian issuing an ICVI or 
other document required for the interstate movement of animals under 
this part must forward a copy of the ICVI or other document to the 
State or Tribal animal health official of the State or Tribe of origin 
within 7 calendar days from the date on which the ICVI or other 
document is issued. The State or Tribal animal health official in the 
State or Tribe of origin must forward a copy of the ICVI or other 
document to the State or Tribal animal health official the State or 
Tribe of destination within 7 calendar days from date on which the ICVI 
or other document is received.
    (2) The animal health official or accredited veterinarian issuing 
or receiving an ICVI or other interstate movement document in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section must keep a copy of 
the ICVI or alternate documentation. For poultry and swine, such 
documents must be kept for at least 2 years, and for cattle and bison, 
sheep and goats, cervids, and equine species, 5 years.
    (c) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison moved interstate must be 
accompanied by an ICVI unless:
    (1) They are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering 
establishment, or directly to an approved livestock facility and then 
directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment, and they are 
accompanied by an owner-shipper statement.
    (2) They are moved directly to an approved livestock facility with 
an owner-shipper statement and do not move interstate from the facility 
unless accompanied by an ICVI.
    (3) They are moved from the farm of origin for veterinary medical 
examination or treatment and returned to the farm of origin without 
change in ownership.
    (4) They are moved directly from one State through another State 
and back to the original State.
    (5) They are moved as a commuter herd with a copy of the commuter 
herd agreement or other document as agreed to by the States or Tribes 
involved in the movement.
    (6) Additionally, cattle and bison may be moved between shipping 
and receiving States or Tribes with documentation other than an ICVI, 
e.g., a brand inspection certificate, as agreed upon by animal health 
officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
    (7) The official identification number of cattle or bison must be 
recorded on the ICVI or alternate documentation unless:
    (i) The cattle or bison are moved from an approved livestock 
facility directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
    (ii) The cattle and bison are sexually intact cattle or bison under 
18 months of age or steers or spayed heifers; Except that: This 
exception does not apply to dairy cattle of any age or to cattle or 
bison used for rodeo, exhibition, or recreational purposes.
    (d) Horses and other equine species. Horses and other equine 
species moved interstate must be accompanied by an ICVI unless:
    (1) They are used as the mode of transportation (horseback, horse 
and buggy) for travel to another location and then return direct to the 
original location; or
    (2) They are moved from the farm or stable for veterinary medical 
examination or treatment and returned to the same location without 
change in ownership; or
    (3) They are moved directly from a location in one State through 
another State to a second location in the original State.
    (4) Additionally, equids may be moved between shipping and 
receiving States or Tribes with documentation other than an ICVI, e.g., 
an equine infectious anemia test chart, as agreed to by the shipping 
and receiving States or Tribes involved in the movement.
    (5) Equids moving commercially to slaughter must be accompanied by 
documentation in accordance with part 88 of this subchapter. Equine 
infectious anemia reactors moving interstate must be accompanied by 
documentation as required by part 75 of this subchapter.
    (e) Poultry. Poultry moved interstate must be accompanied by an 
ICVI unless:
    (1) They are from a flock participating in the National Poultry 
Improvement Plan (NPIP) and are accompanied by the documentation 
required under the NPIP regulations (parts 145 through 147 of this 
chapter) for participation in that program; or
    (2) They are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering or 
rendering establishment; or
    (3) They are moved from the farm of origin for veterinary medical 
examination, treatment, or diagnostic purposes and either returned to 
the farm of origin without change in ownership or euthanized and 
disposed of at the veterinary facility; or
    (4) They are moved directly from one State through another State 
and back to the original State; or
    (5) They are moved between shipping and receiving States or Tribes 
with a VS Form 9-3 or documentation other than an ICVI, as agreed upon 
by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or 
Tribes; or
    (6) They are moved under permit in accordance with part 82 of this 
subchapter.
    (f) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats moved interstate must be 
accompanied by documentation as required by part 79 of this subchapter.
    (g) Swine. Swine moved interstate must be accompanied by 
documentation in accordance with Sec.  71.19 of this subchapter or, if 
applicable, with part 85 of this subchapter.
    (h) Captive cervids. Captive cervids moved interstate must be 
accompanied by documentation as required by part 77 of this subchapter.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of January 2023.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-00505 Filed 1-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P