[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39540-39566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09717]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the animal disease traceability regulations to 
require that eartags applied on or after a date 180 days after 
publication in the Federal Register of this final 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 clarifying certain record retention 
and record access requirements and revising some requirements 
pertaining to slaughter cattle. These changes will 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: This rule is effective November 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Alexander K. Turner, Acting 
Director, Animal Disease Traceability and Veterinary Accreditation 
Center, Strategy and Policy, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre Ave., Building B, 
Fort Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494-7353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et 
seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to issue orders 
and regulations to prevent the introduction into the United States and 
the dissemination within the United States of any pest or disease of 
livestock. Within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has primary regulatory 
responsibility to prevent, control, and eradicate communicable diseases 
of livestock in the United States. Knowing where diseased and at-risk 
animals are, where they have been, and when, is indispensable in 
emergency response and in ongoing disease control and eradication 
programs.
    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) and are contained in 9 CFR part 86, 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 (sexually 
intact and 18 months of age or older, all female dairy cattle of any 
age and male dairy cattle 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), sheep and goats, swine, 
horses and other equids, captive cervids (e.g., deer and elk), and 
poultry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the final rule, supporting documents, and comments 
we received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2009-0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations, official identification devices or methods 
are determined by the APHIS Administrator. An ``official identification 
device or method'' is defined in Sec.  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 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 
``[b]rands 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 [t]attoos 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.'' 9 CFR 86.4(a)(1)(ii) through (iv).
    Historically, APHIS has used metal, non-electronic identification 
(EID) tags for animal identification in disease programs for many 
decades and has approved both non-EID and radio frequency 
identification (RFID, a form of EID) tags for use as official eartags 
in cattle and bison since 2008.
    Since the enactment of the animal disease traceability regulations, 
APHIS has worked with stakeholders to enhance its traceability capacity 
within the Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program. In January 2017, 
APHIS staff officers met with State officials and

[[Page 39541]]

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 Animal Identification Numbers (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 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: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2017-0016-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The notice and meetings generated 462 written public comments. A 
working group composed of State and Federal officials, 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 Animal 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.
    While APHIS focuses on interstate movement 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 with regard to the interstate movement of cattle 
and bison covered under 9 CFR part 86. (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. At this time, Tribes have not 
requested such test exercises.) Results of these test exercises can be 
viewed on APHIS' traceability web page.\3\ The results 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 on 
average 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. We believe electronic tags and electronic record 
systems provide a significant advantage over non-EID tags and paper 
record systems, or systems that involve manual entry of tag numbers, 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, supporting documents, and comments we 
received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2020-0022-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 2020 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 9 CFR 
86.4(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) (such as the use of tattoos and brands when 
accepted by State veterinary officials in the sending and receiving 
States).
    We solicited comments on the 2020 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. 
These commenters expressed concern about issues including perceived 
costs, retention time on the animals of RFID eartags, as well as our 
legal authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 500 et 
seq.) to change the eartag requirements using a

[[Page 39542]]

notice-based procedure rather than rulemaking.
    After reviewing the comments on the July 2020 notice, 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 2020 notice, and that we ``would use the rulemaking 
process for further action related to the proposal.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The notice was posted to https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2021/rfid-traceability-rulemaking. It is 
available by contacting [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To that end, on January 19, 2023, we published in the Federal 
Register (88 FR 3320-3330, Docket No. APHIS-2021-0020) a proposal \6\ 
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 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. The proposed rule differed from the 2020 notice 
in that we referred to electronic identification (EID) tags rather than 
to RFID tags to recognize the permissibility of other electronically 
readable technology, in addition to RFID technology, should it become 
available in the future. We also proposed several other changes to part 
86 aimed at clarifying the regulations, including revising the 
definition of dairy cattle, amending certain provisions pertaining to 
recordkeeping, and revising certain requirements pertaining to 
slaughter cattle. We began soliciting comments concerning the proposal 
for 60 days, ending March 20, 2023, and in response to several requests 
by commenters, we extended \7\ the comment period by 30 days to April 
19, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To view the proposal, supporting documents, and the comments 
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2021-0020-0001.
    \7\ The comment extension notice was published on March 20, 2023 
(88 FR 16576, Docket No. APHIS-2021-0020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received 2,006 comments by the extended date. The comments were 
from industry groups, producers, veterinarians, State departments of 
agriculture, and individuals.
    Similar to the response to the notice published on July 6, 2020,\8\ 
many of the commenters representing industry organizations and State 
departments of agriculture regulatory officials were supportive of the 
proposed rule and agreed that EID furthered the goals of the ADT 
program with regard to animal traceability. We also received many 
comments expressing opposition to our proposal. Our responses to those 
comments are provided below, organized by topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments

    Several commenters stated that our proposed rule would not improve 
animal disease traceability because an insufficient number of animals 
are covered under the proposed rule. These commenters noted that USDA 
has stated that a participation rate of 70 percent of the nation's 
cattle herd would be necessary for an ADT program to be effective.
    Having a higher percentage of the nation's cattle population 
officially identified would certainly be a benefit to a robust ADT 
program, but our focus in this rulemaking is to continue to enhance our 
ability to respond quickly to high-impact diseases of livestock within 
the constraints of the animal classes and movements that are currently 
required to have official identification and the animal classes and 
movements that are currently exempted.
    The source \9\ cited by the commenters was the 2009 Congressional 
testimony of Dr. John Clifford, a former APHIS Deputy Administrator for 
Veterinary Services. Dr. Clifford was testifying about what measures 
were in place to survey for and respond to the possible introduction of 
high-risk foreign animal diseases (FADs) into the United States. His 
comments should be viewed through that lens and understood to mean 
that, in order to be fully prepared for a possible incursion of an FAD, 
an estimated 70 percent \10\ of animals of a specific species/sector 
would need to be traceable. At the time of his testimony, Dr. Clifford 
estimated that 25 percent of the nation's beef cattle herd participated 
in the USDA's National Animal Identification System (a voluntary system 
that prefigured the current ADT program). The higher the number of 
animals that are traceable, the higher the likelihood that we are able 
to trace any particular instance of disease and effectively respond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/5_5_09_Clifford_Dep_Admin_for_Vet_Services_APHIS_National_Animal_ID.pdf.
    \10\ More recently, a 2018 World Perspectives study commissioned 
by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association estimated that a window 
of 45 percent to 90 percent, with a midpoint of 68 percent, is 
needed for traceability to have ``national significance.'' 
(``Comprehensive Feasibility Study: U.S. Beef Cattle Identification 
and Traceability Systems.'' World Perspectives, Inc. 2018.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These statements do not preclude APHIS from taking measures, such 
as our proposed rule, to move closer to that stated objective, nor do 
they contradict our claim that our proposal would improve the efficacy 
of our current ADT program. For the reasons outlined in the proposed 
rule and summarized above in this document, requiring EID for eartags 
will improve our ability to trace the cattle and bison that are 
currently required to have official identification and that meet this 
requirement with eartags.
    A commenter stated that our proposed rule would not improve ADT 
because our proposal included no measure to solve problems with paper 
records by, for example, requiring the digitization of paper records 
used in disease traceback investigations.
    We are making no change in response to the commenter. While the 
regulations do not require the digitization of paper records, APHIS has 
elsewhere encouraged the use of electronic recordkeeping through 
efforts such as targeted funding to State and Tribal animal health 
officials operating under an ADT cooperative agreement to support their 
electronic recordkeeping systems and maintain their internal databases 
used for animal disease traceability. Cooperators have used this 
funding in a variety of ways, including providing accredited 
veterinarians and livestock markets with free EID readers. Partly as a 
result of these efforts, electronic interstate certificate of 
veterinary inspections (ICVIs) are readily available now and frequently 
used. Moreover, our proposal included editing language in the 
definition of interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) in 
Sec.  86.1 to clarify that electronic ICVIs may be used as an 
alternative to paper ICVIs. Our intention with respect to this change 
was to continue to encourage electronic recordkeeping in order to 
further alleviate the potential problems caused by paper records. 
However, because electronic ICVIs may sometimes be impracticable for 
the regulated community, we are not requiring the use of electronic 
ICVIs.
    A commenter stated that typos were not a legitimate basis for major 
Federal action and claimed that APHIS was suggesting that ranchers 
``are doing sloppy work.''

[[Page 39543]]

    Transcription errors in animal location and movement documents have 
the potential to significantly impede trace investigations. APHIS 
recognizes that producers and others who complete these documents 
typically take care in producing the documents; however, reading and 
transcribing tag identifiers by hand, especially National Uniform 
Eartagging System (NUES) tags that may be obstructed with debris or 
worn down, is a process that is inherently subject to human error. 
Errors can occur at the level of writing, reviewing, or completing 
movement documents, and an error in recording a single digit can have 
major impacts on a trace.
    Some commenters stated that APHIS has failed to articulate the need 
for the proposed EID requirement, as the current ADT program has proven 
adequate. One of these commenters cited examples of successful disease 
outbreak control of bovine tuberculosis (TB) in Michigan; mad cow 
disease in Washington in 2003; and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in 
California in 1929.
    Successes in the past do not mean EID is unnecessary. As explained 
in the proposed rule and summarized earlier in this document, APHIS 
partners with State veterinary officials each year to test the 
performance of States' animal disease traceability systems. Results of 
these test exercises currently show that when State veterinary 
officials are provided an identification number from an animal that has 
been identified with an official identification tag, either metal or 
EID, that has been entered accurately into a data system, over half of 
States can trace animals to any one of four locations in less than 1 
hour (these four locations are: the State where an animal was tagged, 
the location in-State where an animal was tagged, 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 in the trace 
test exercises resulted when numbers from visual (metal) tags were 
transcribed inaccurately, movement records were not readily available, 
or information was only retrievable from labor-intensive paper filing 
systems. EID tags and electronic record systems thus provide 
significant advantage over other forms of official identification to 
rapidly and accurately read and record tag numbers and retrieve 
traceability information.
    As for the examples cited by the commenter, Michigan was unable to 
regain TB-free status in the vast majority of the State until 
improvements to its traceability program were made following the 
State's implementation of the mandatory use of RFID ear tags in cattle 
and bison in 2007. Michigan faces a unique challenge in eradicating 
bovine TB, as the disease is endemic in free-ranging white-tailed deer 
present in specific areas of Michigan, and the disease can be 
transmitted between deer and cattle. Because of this, Michigan 
maintains a split-state status for TB: the State is divided into a 
Modified Accredited Zone and Accredited Free areas.\11\ International 
trading partners and States have required Michigan to maintain a robust 
traceability program to continue to allow animals to move 
internationally or to other States from the Accredited Free areas of 
Michigan. Utilizing mandatory RFID tags in this traceability program 
allows immediate uploading of accurate records to the Michigan 
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's system, which in turn 
allows Michigan to show their trading partners proof of where animals 
have been within the State, and helps to guarantee rapid response in 
the event of an animal disease emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Modified Accredited Zone is currently comprised of 4 
counties; the State's remaining 79 counties are Accredited Free 
areas (https://www.michigan.gov/mdard/animals/diseases/bovine-tuberculosis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to allowing for more rapid tracing of animals into and 
out of TB-positive herds, the mandatory RFID tagging requirement allows 
Michigan to provide real-time animal movement data for animals leaving 
the Modified Accredited Zone. This program allows State and Federal 
animal health officials to trace potentially exposed herds within 
hours, as opposed to days or weeks, saving both time and money. TB 
traces in Michigan are linked to source and exposed herds more 
accurately, which reduces the number of additional herds impacted by 
quarantine and testing. We believe Michigan's experience further 
supports our contention that increased use of EID eartags nationwide 
will improve APHIS's animal disease traceability program.
    Regarding the 1929 outbreak of FMD in California, historically, 
cattle movement in the United States was much smaller. Animals today 
can be transported quickly and easily across State lines, allowing for 
a much more rapid and uncontrolled spread of disease. While the United 
States was fortunate to contain the disease in 1929, containing an 
outbreak would be far more difficult today. Moreover, the cost of 
containment, eradication, and the loss of export markets would far 
outweigh the cost of EID tags.
    Regarding the 2003 case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, 
``mad cow disease'') in Washington, the diseased cow was traceable to 
Canada. The United States was unable to trace all the cows in the 
diseased cow's cohort, leading to suspicion that more cows with BSE 
existed in the United States, which resulted in negative impacts to 
cattle prices and export markets that lasted several years.\12\ We 
consider this further support for improving the animal disease 
traceability program, as we believe that a more effective and efficient 
animal disease traceability program may have prevented those impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Coffey, B., Mintert, J., Fox, J.A., Schroeder, T.C. and 
Valentin, L., 2005. The economic impact of BSE on the US beef 
industry: product value losses, regulatory costs, and consumer 
reactions. Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station 
and Cooperative Extension Service, MF-2678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we have previously stated, in order to be fully prepared for a 
possible incursion of a high-risk FAD, an estimated 70 percent of each 
species/sector would need to be traceable. To be an effective tool for 
disease control, the traceability must be successful to the source of 
the disease and exposed animals within the time window of the 
particular disease's exposure and transmission parameters. This 
rulemaking furthers this goal.
    Some commenters claimed that the ADT program's goal to trace an 
animal from birth to death in less than 24 hours was flawed, as birth-
to-death traceability is not needed for fast-moving diseases such as 
FMD. The commenter suggested that the program need only trace where the 
infected animal has been in the last few days. The commenters also 
claimed that slow-moving diseases such as TB do not require rapid 
traceback.
    The ADT program does not have a goal of tracing an animal from 
birth to death in less than 24 hours; the ADT program's goal is to be 
able to trace animals' movements completely and as rapidly as necessary 
to contain the disease in question, which depends on the speed of 
disease transmission.
    Traceability is necessary for controlling both fast-moving 
diseases, like FMD, as well as slower-moving diseases, like TB and 
brucellosis. In both cases, speed of data retrieval and information 
sharing is important for efficiently and effectively completing a trace 
investigation. Responders can better identify animals that may have 
come in contact with an affected animal, which sometimes can number in 
the thousands or tens of thousands, implement mitigation strategies, 
and thereby minimize the economic impact of outbreaks to the industry. 
This speed of information retrieval and sharing is

[[Page 39544]]

enhanced when electronic identification and recordkeeping methods are 
utilized.
    A commenter stated that use of EID eartags would not be enough to 
help control a potential FMD outbreak, and that prevention should be 
the first line of defense.
    APHIS agrees that a response to FMD in the United States would 
require a multifactorial approach. As explained in Dr. Clifford's 2009 
testimony \13\ before Congress, APHIS' response plan includes specific 
emergency response guidelines; coordination with Departments and 
Agencies that will support and partner with USDA in emergency response; 
rapid response teams stationed around the country; access to personnel 
through the International Animal Health Emergency Response Corps; the 
National Veterinary Stockpile; and guidelines regarding the use of FMD 
vaccine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, while prevention and biosecurity are necessary first-line 
defenses, we do not agree that they are sufficient risk mitigation 
strategies alone. EID eartags will make the process of tracing infected 
and exposed animals more efficient and will improve our implementation 
of mitigations, like tracing animals forward or utilizing vaccination 
or regionalization strategies. EID would be critical to reopening 
export markets closed as a result of an FMD outbreak, as the rapid 
tracing afforded by EID would help the United States demonstrate 
freedom from disease and disposition of all infected and exposed 
animals.
    A commenter stated that early diagnosis and good animal husbandry 
are more important to disease control than ADT, as evidenced by the 
failure of EID to prevent the porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) outbreak 
of 2013.
    While we agree that good animal husbandry is important for 
preventing disease and that early diagnosis can help prevent its 
spread, this does not negate the importance of an ADT program, which 
can help us contain potentially devastating disease outbreaks before 
they can do substantial damage.
    The commenter is correct that electronic identification of swine 
moving interstate would not have materially impacted the spread of PED. 
However, this is due to the nature of the disease and swine industry 
practices, rather than a failure of EID identification. The primary 
mechanism of PED spread was through fomites (e.g., pig feed, trucks, 
etc.) and not animal-to-animal contact where tracing would have been of 
greater benefit. In contrast, diseases of cattle and bison, such as TB, 
brucellosis, and FMD, often are transmitted by animal-to-animal contact 
and, when the cattle or bison are moving in interstate commerce, the 
diseases can rapidly damage the cattle and bison industry in multiple 
States.
    Some commenters disagreed that our proposal would address animal 
disease outbreaks because they claimed the risk of outbreaks of 
diseases of livestock originates from people crossing the border into 
the United States. Commenters specifically cited the risk of human-to-
animal transmission of TB.
    The commenter's claim that disease outbreaks of TB in cattle and 
bison are largely the result of zoonosis, and exposure to infected 
humans is not supported by data. Information from APHIS' National 
Tuberculosis Eradication Program indicates that TB is usually spread 
through the purchase of infected animals or exposure to infected cattle 
or wildlife. While human-to-animal transmission of TB may periodically 
occur, genomic testing shows the incidence to be low.
    Some commenters disagreed that our proposal would address livestock 
disease outbreaks because they claimed the risk of livestock disease 
outbreaks originates from imported cattle and beef. The commenters 
suggested that APHIS focus its efforts on restricting imports to 
prevent the introduction of livestock disease rather than improving 
ADT.
    This rulemaking is limited in scope to improving our national 
animal disease traceability program; restrictions on the importation of 
live animals and animal products are outside of its scope. We note 
that, under our regulations in 9 CFR part 93, APHIS only allows the 
importation of live animals from countries that meet certain freedom 
from disease testing requirements. Under 9 CFR part 94, APHIS similarly 
restricts the importation of animal products based on the animal 
disease status of the exporting region. Animals and animal products 
that do not meet these requirements may not be imported into the United 
States.
    A commenter stated that the proposed rule does not mention 
biosecurity and, therefore, is not focused on disease prevention.
    We agree with the commenter that biosecurity is important to 
preventing disease and encourage producers to follow biosecurity 
practices. The commenter is correct that this final rule is not focused 
on disease prevention. As acknowledged in the proposed rule, the intent 
of the proposed rule was not to prevent disease epidemics. Rather, it 
would facilitate containing disease outbreaks before they can do 
substantial damage to the U.S. cattle and bison industries. This final 
rule is specifically focused on improving our ability to trace animals 
accurately and rapidly in order to prevent that potential damage.
    Many commenters who opposed the proposed EID tag requirement based 
their opposition on issues related to food safety. Commenters stated 
that the majority of food-borne illnesses in meat are the result of 
practices at the slaughterhouse and in processing and handling. Since 
animal identification programs end at the time of slaughter, commenters 
argued that requiring EID tags on cattle will not increase food safety.
    Within the USDA, food safety of meat and meat food products falls 
under the purview of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). 
APHIS does not have statutory authority to regulate for food safety. 
The EID eartag requirement is intended to facilitate animal disease 
traceability, thereby improving our ability to trace outbreaks of 
diseases of livestock in live animals and more efficiently control or 
eradicate these diseases. This is consistent with our statutory 
authority under the AHPA.
    It was further stated that, to address food safety and animal 
disease, APHIS should increase oversight and testing at the large meat 
processing plants. The commenters felt that would be more effective in 
preventing the spread of disease than requiring EID eartags.
    As noted above, FSIS is a separate agency of USDA that regulates 
the slaughter and processing of meat and meat food products. APHIS does 
not provide oversight of the slaughter or processing operations; 
however, APHIS conducts surveillance for domestic animal diseases, such 
as brucellosis and TB, and some foreign animal diseases in certain 
species through slaughter surveillance. APHIS regularly evaluates its 
slaughter surveillance programs for efficacy; however, we disagree with 
the commenter that more stringent oversight of such facilities would 
prove more effective than requiring EID tags. Slaughter facilities are 
a terminal point, and cattle and bison may pass through multiple 
intermediate locations and commingle with animals from other premises 
and of other health statuses prior to slaughter. In the event of a 
disease outbreak, addressing this possible intermediate movement 
requires rapid and accurate traceability of all potentially affected 
livestock.
    Some commenters asked us to reinstate mandatory country of origin 
labeling (COOL) in order to have a successful traceability program. 
Some commenters asked whether we intended

[[Page 39545]]

to use EID tags for the purposes of COOL.
    COOL pertains to the labeling of food products and is not related 
to APHIS' animal disease traceability program. Moreover, COOL was never 
under APHIS' purview, but under the purview of the Agricultural 
Marketing Service (AMS).
    Some commenters expressed their support for the continued exemption 
of cattle under 18 months of age from official identification 
requirements.
    The regulations will continue to exempt most feeder cattle (beef 
cattle less than 18 months of age) from official identification 
requirements.
    A commenter stated that ADT should only apply to breeding cattle or 
cattle in interstate commerce. Conversely, other commenters recommended 
that we apply the EID tag requirement to all cattle and/or that all 
cattle should be tagged at birth or before being sold, as this would 
improve our ability to locate diseased animals and lessen the effects 
of a disease outbreak. Some of these commenters added that this issue 
should be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
    We will consider the commenters' recommendations in the future; 
however, changing the type of cattle needing official identification is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Should APHIS decide to change the 
type of cattle that require official identification in the future, this 
process would occur through rulemaking that would solicit public 
comment.
    Some commenters expressed concern about APHIS expanding ADT 
requirements to encompass other types of cattle in the future.
    This rulemaking is only intended to address the transition to EID 
official eartags for cattle and bison that are currently required to 
have official identification.
    Some commenters expressed confusion regarding whether the EID tag 
requirement applied to their animals. Commenters provided various 
examples of beef cattle that do not move interstate, or that moved 
interstate but were less than 18 months of age. It was stated that the 
rule would require producers to tag their direct-to-slaughter cows and 
bulls. Similarly, two commenters requested that we exclude small 
producers from the EID eartag requirements in order to reduce burden on 
these entities.
    This final rule does not change the types of animals to which 
official identification requirements apply, nor does it change the 
categories of animals that are exempted from official identification 
requirements. Under the current regulations in Sec.  86.4(b), which 
this final rule does not change, the following categories of cattle and 
bison are subject to 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 male dairy 
cattle 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. Cattle and bison are exempted from official 
identification requirements if they are going directly to slaughter.
    Because of these strictures, many small entities have cattle that 
are excluded from the requirement currently, including many of the 
commenters who asked whether the rule applies to them. Beef feeder 
cattle under 18 months of age are not subject to the identification 
requirements. Direct-to-slaughter cattle, including cull cattle, are 
not subject to the identification requirements. Cattle and bison that 
do not move interstate are not subject to the identification 
requirements, unless required by APHIS program disease regulations in 9 
CFR subchapter C.
    Some commenters stated that when the new EID tag requirement goes 
into effect, we should continue to exempt animals moved between States 
on pasture-to-pasture movement permits, i.e., commuter herd agreements, 
from the requirements for official identification.
    The EID tag requirement does not change the categories of animals 
that are subject to, or exempted from, the requirements for official 
identification.
    Under a commuter herd agreement between a livestock owner and State 
or Tribal animal health officials, cattle and bison may be moved 
interstate between two premises, without a change of ownership in the 
course of normal livestock operations, subject to the conditions of the 
agreement. The regulations in Sec.  86.4 provide for interstate 
movement of commuter herds under commuter herd agreements. See 9 CFR 
86.4(b)(1)(i)(A). The EID tag requirement does not affect those 
regulations and, therefore, does not have any implications for the 
interstate movement of commuter herds.
    A commenter stated that animals involved in private treaty sales 
for the purpose of breeding should be exempt from EID tag requirements 
when moved interstate.
    This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Per Sec.  
86.2(b), no person may move covered livestock interstate or receive 
livestock moved interstate unless all requirements of part 86 are met. 
Private treaty sales of breeding cattle are required to meet these 
requirements, including official identification and an ICVI.
    A commenter stated that allowing animals to move through a 
livestock facility to a slaughter establishment where a backtag can be 
applied, in accordance with Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(ii)(B), leaves a potential 
gap in traceability to the premises of origin.
    Section 86.4(b)(1)(ii) refers to a situation in which cattle are 
exempted from the requirement for official identification. Exemptions 
from the requirement for official identification are outside the scope 
of this rulemaking.
    A commenter stated that finalizing this proposed rule would 
``invite limitless incremental regulation from other agencies.''
    The commenter's stated supposition for this statement is that this 
rulemaking represents a concerted effort by the Federal Government, as 
a whole, to wrest livestock management decisions from individual 
producers. APHIS has no intent to do so, nor is it aware of any such 
effort.
    The same commenter opined that the rule could be used by APHIS as a 
basis for incremental further expansion of the ADT program, citing, as 
purportedly analogous examples, requirements by the Security and 
Exchange Commission regarding environmental, social, and governance 
reporting, and policies by the Food and Drug Administration regarding 
the use of antibiotics in livestock.
    APHIS has no authority over the regulatory actions and policies of 
other agencies. However, as noted above, the proposed rule is a 
distinct action meant, primarily, to change the official eartag 
requirements for cattle and bison covered by the ADT regulations in 
order to improve its emergency response and ongoing disease control and 
eradication programs. The proposed rule is not intended as part of a 
suite of interlocking, incremental regulatory changes to the 
regulations, and any possible future revisions to the regulations would 
be through proposed rules with the opportunity for public comment.
    Some commenters, while generally supporting the use of EID eartags 
for official identification of cattle and bison, believed that such use 
should be voluntary rather than a requirement.
    The use of EID official eartags has been voluntary for many years. 
In our view, and as stated above, continuing to allow the use of EID 
eartags by producers on a voluntary basis will not provide the degree 
of enhancement to our traceability capacity that is needed

[[Page 39546]]

for optimal animal disease investigation and control.
    We also received a number of comments regarding the public comment 
period and outreach efforts related to this rulemaking. A few 
commenters stated that more stakeholder outreach was needed. Some 
commenters stated that APHIS ignored previous stakeholder outreach in 
drafting our proposed rule. Some commenters requested an extension of 
the comment period, ranging from 30 days to 90 days, to allow more time 
for public input.
    We extended the comment period for the proposed rule by 30 days, 
which we consider appropriate given our prior outreach efforts to 
stakeholders. We disagree that our outreach efforts were inadequate or 
that the feedback received during our outreach efforts was ignored. As 
stated in the proposed rule and summarized earlier in this document, 
outreach included meetings with State officials and APHIS Veterinary 
Services field officers; nine public meetings that solicited attendance 
from cattle and bison industry members, as well as impacted States and 
Tribes; the July 2020 notice seeking public comment for 90 days; as 
well as the January 2023 proposed rule, which solicited comment for a 
total of 90 days. All input and comments received from these efforts 
were considered when drafting this rulemaking.

Effective Date and Implementation

    Some commenters advocated grandfathering in existing eartags, i.e., 
recognizing visual tags, such as National Uniform Eartagging System 
eartags, as official eartags for animals tagged with them prior to 
November 5, 2024, the effective date of the EID tag requirement.
    We agree with these commenters. As we noted in the proposed rule, 
visual eartags applied to animals prior to November 5, 2024 will be 
recognized as official eartags for the life of the animal.
    Some commenters expressed concern about the effective date of 
November 5, 2024, stating that 6 months was a relatively short amount 
of time to notify producers of the new requirements and for producers 
to meet the EID tag requirement. Other commenters expressed support for 
our proposed timeline.
    We believe that an effective date of November 5, 2024 provides 
sufficient time for stakeholders to comply with the new requirements. 
APHIS has engaged in extensive outreach efforts regarding the use of 
EID eartags, as summarized earlier in this document, and it has ensured 
that the new requirements will only apply to eartags applied to animals 
after the effective date.
    Two commenters stated that implementation of the proposed rule 
would be difficult due to a general labor shortage.
    We note that producers may apply official eartags to their animals 
themselves. Whether producers have tags applied to their animals at 
approved tagging sites, apply tags to their animals themselves, or hire 
labor to apply tags to their animals, we do not believe there is more 
labor involved in the application of EID eartags as opposed to applying 
eartags that are only visually readable.
    Multiple commenters expressed concern about potential shortages of 
EID tags in light of supply chain and manufacturing challenges. Some 
commenters mentioned that EID tags are often backordered or that there 
are high wait times for EID tag orders. Some commenters recommended we 
create a contingency plan in the event EID tags required by this 
rulemaking are not available once the final rule goes into effect.
    APHIS ADT staff have had frequent conversations with manufacturers 
of official devices and have been assured that manufacturing and 
shipping capacity is adequate for the projected number of cattle 
requiring official identification for interstate movement.
    APHIS is aware of supply chain and manufacturing disruptions due to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, but these issues have been resolved. APHIS is 
also aware of long wait times due to customization or brand preferences 
that are desired by the producer, but the regulations do not require 
such customizations or that any specific brand be used. We do not 
believe either of these issues indicate that a current shortage exists 
or that a future shortage is likely, and the commenters have not 
provided any additional evidence of reasonably foreseeable supply chain 
issues.
    Finally, as discussed in further detail later in this document, we 
believe that the streamlining changes we proposed to the approval 
process for new EID devices will help insulate against unforeseen 
supply chain disruptions.

Definitions (Sec.  86.1)

    In Sec.  86.1, we proposed to revise the definitions of approved 
tagging site, dairy cattle, interstate certificate of veterinary 
inspection (ICVI), and official eartag. We also proposed to add a new 
definition for Official Animal Identification Device Standards (OAIDS). 
Comments we received for each of the revisions and addition to Sec.  
86.1 are addressed below.

Approved Tagging Site

    The current regulations define an approved tagging site as ``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.'' In order to offer 
greater clarity regarding the nature of an approved tagging site by 
specifying that such sites are where official identification tags are 
physically applied to animals, we proposed to revise this definition 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.''
    One commenter, while expressing support, suggested we also revise 
the definition to require the physical address of the originating 
premises to be recorded alongside the animal's official identification 
number in order to address a purported ambiguity in the current 
regulations. The commenter stated that, occasionally, livestock exempt 
from the official identification requirements for interstate movement 
by Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(i)(C) that arrive to an approved tagging site only 
have their official identification numbers recorded with the physical 
address of their originating premises if they receive their official 
identification at the tagging site, while, for livestock that arrive 
already bearing official identification and only have backtags applied 
at the tagging site, no record is made of their originating premises.
    We are making no change in response to this comment. Cattle moving 
interstate, whether or not already bearing official identification, 
must be accompanied by an ICVI or alternative movement document. (See 
Sec.  86.5(a).) These records contain the physical address of the 
animal's originating premises. Therefore, in both scenarios referenced 
by the commenter, records correlating the animal's official 
identification number to their originating premises already exist, and 
we do not agree that the definition of approved tagging site is an 
appropriate place to reference these records requirements.
    However, if States or Tribes wish to require an approved tagging 
site to complete this additional recordkeeping, they could do so as 
part of their State or Tribal agreements for authorizing an

[[Page 39547]]

approved tagging site, as requirements for approved tagging sites may 
vary according to the relevant authority.
    One commenter asked whether a ranch was considered an approved 
tagging site and, if so, whether this involved an approval process. 
Another commenter asked how a location can become an approved tagging 
site.
    Per the definition of approved tagging site, approved tagging sites 
may be authorized by State, Federal, or Tribal animal health officials. 
Individual States maintain lists of the approved tagging sites in their 
State. The commenters are encouraged to contact the appropriate animal 
health official in their area \14\ to receive a list of approved 
tagging sites in their State, as well as information regarding becoming 
an approved tagging site. Requirements for approved tagging sites may 
vary depending on the relevant authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Contact information for State animal health officials 
(SAHOs) may be found at: https://www.usaha.org/saho.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter stated that the process for becoming an approved 
tagging site should be consistent with the process for becoming a 
Secondary Tagging Site for the Agriculture Marketing Service Process 
Verified Program.
    We are making no change in response to the comment, as approved 
tagging sites, as defined in Sec.  86.1 are not related to Process 
Verified Programs. As mentioned above, approved tagging sites may be 
authorized by State, Federal, or Tribal animal health officials. 
Accordingly, the requirements for authorizing an approved tagging site 
may vary depending on the relevant authority.
    One commenter asked whether all in-State general auction markets 
were approved tagging sites.
    No. In-State general auction markets may become approved tagging 
sites if authorized as such by APHIS, State, or Tribal animal health 
officials.

Dairy Cattle

    The current definition for dairy cattle reads, ``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 proposed to add to this 
definition cattle that are reared under the same management practices 
as purebred dairy cattle. The definition in the proposed rule read: 
``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.'' Commenters raised concerns that caused us to further revise 
this definition, which we discuss later in this document.
    We also proposed changes throughout part 86 to align the 
regulations with this revised definition. This included revising Sec.  
86.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) to include the offspring of dairy cattle in the list 
of cattle subject to the official identification requirements, as well 
as revising Sec.  86.5(c)(7)(ii) to require that the official 
identification numbers of all dairy cattle, regardless of whether the 
dairy cattle are sexually intact, must be recorded on ICVIs.
    Multiple commenters expressed their support for the revised 
definition for dairy cattle presented in the proposed rule, stating 
that the revision would help eliminate confusion and ambiguity.
    We agree with the commenters. Eliminating ambiguity in the 
definition will help ensure that all dairy cattle, which have an 
increased risk of disease, meet the appropriate requirements for 
official identification and movement documentation.
    A commenter requested we clarify whether our proposed revision 
intends to capture beef animals ``born on a dairy farm,'' and, if so, 
requested that we clarify that these animals would be required to have 
official identification if moved interstate. The commenter also noted 
that compliance challenges may present themselves in situations where 
an animal's farm of birth is unknown.
    The increased disease risk relevant to animals born on a dairy farm 
that we discussed in the proposed rule applies specifically to beef/
dairy cross bred cattle born on a dairy farm. We agree with the 
commenter that the phrase ``born on a dairy farm'' is unclear, as it 
may give the false impression that it applies to beef animals born on a 
dairy farm that are not beef/dairy cross bred animals. Therefore, we 
are revising our proposal to address this potential confusion. The 
revised definition of dairy cattle will read as follows: ``All cattle, 
regardless of age or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) or 
offspring of a breed 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.''
    Some commenters, while expressing their support for a revised 
definition, asked us to replace the phrase ``cross bred calves of any 
breed'' in the revised definition presented in the proposed rule with 
the phrase ``cross bred cattle of any breed'' to further eliminate 
confusion regarding to which animals the definition applies.
    The commenters are correct that we intended to capture cross bred 
cattle of any age, rather than only calves, in our proposed revised 
definition. We believe the modification to the proposed definition 
provided above addresses these commenters' concern.
    One commenter asked whether the change to the dairy cattle 
definition would apply across all Federal regulations administered by 
APHIS. The commenter stated that consistency in definitions would 
prevent discrepancy and aid enforcement.
    In the proposed rule, we proposed to revise definitions in 9 CFR 
parts 71, 77, and 78 to correspond with the changes to the definitions 
that we proposed for part 86. While we accounted for the definitions of 
official eartag and interstate certificate of veterinary inspection 
(ICVI), we erroneously neglected to account for the definition of dairy 
cattle, which the commenter correctly points out is also used in part 
78. Therefore, we will revise the definition of dairy cattle in part 78 
to correspond with the change to the definition made in part 86.
    Some commenters disagreed with our proposed revised definition, 
arguing that there is no increased risk of disease transmission from 
cattle that are reared under the same management practices as purebred 
dairy cattle.
    We disagree with the commenters. As stated in the proposed rule, 
dairy farm management practices, such as pooling colostrum from 
multiple cows for many calves, commingling calves at different 
locations during their lifetimes, and movement to many destinations, 
result in a higher risk of disease transmission. Beef/dairy crosses 
born on dairy farms are likely to be exposed to these practices, 
especially in early life; therefore, they are at an increased risk of 
disease transmission.
    Two commenters stated that our revised definition would discourage 
producers from including beef/dairy cross bred calves as part of their 
operations.
    The commenter provided no evidence to support this claim. We also 
note that APHIS' operational guidance has consistently held that beef/
dairy cross bred cattle fall under the definition of dairy cattle, and 
are therefore already required to have official identification; our 
change to the dairy cattle definition codifies this longstanding 
guidance

[[Page 39548]]

regarding how to interpret the regulations.

Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (ICVI)

    We proposed to add editorial and formatting changes to the 
definition of interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) to 
clarify that electronic ICVIs may be used.
    A commenter stated that APHIS should require the recording of 
official identification on ICVIs at the most specific applicable level. 
The commenter opined that official individual animal identification 
numbers should be recorded on ICVIs even when animals are identified 
using a group/lot identification number (GIN).
    We are making no changes in response to the comment. A GIN is used 
to uniquely identify a unit of animals of the same species that is 
managed as one group throughout the preharvest production chain. 
Animals identified using a GIN are not required to have the GIN, or any 
additional animal identification number, affixed to them. Instead, the 
GIN is recorded on documents accompanying the animals as they move 
interstate. Because these animals move as a unit, a GIN provides 
sufficient information to identify the animals in the event of a trace. 
We also note that cattle and bison typically do not move on GINs due to 
the current industry structure within the United States.
    A commenter asked us to clarify in the definition of ICVI that 
accredited veterinarians who issue ICVIs must be licensed and 
accredited in the State of origin of the animal requiring 
documentation, as the current definition only requires that issuing 
veterinarians are licensed in State of origin and federally accredited.
    We are making no changes in response to the commenter, as we do not 
agree that the definition of ICVI is an appropriate place to state the 
regulations and standards relevant to accredited veterinarians. The 
commenter is incorrect that the definition of ICVI lists licensure or 
accreditation requirements for veterinarians. Requirements for 
licensure and accreditation for veterinarians are covered in 9 CFR part 
161.

Official Animal Identification Device Standards (OAIDS)

    We proposed to add a definition of Official Animal Identification 
Device Standards (OAIDS) to replace the Animal Disease Traceability 
General Standards document. The proposed OAIDS, like the existing 
Standards document, provides guidelines, technical standards, and 
specifications for tag manufacturers requesting APHIS approval of new 
official identification devices. As stated in the proposed rule, in 
addition to edits corresponding to changes proposed to the regulations, 
changes to the document 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: from 0-12 months to 
0-6 months; preliminary: from 12-24 months to 6-12 months; and 
conditional: from 24-36 months to 12-36 months), reducing the number of 
required field trial locations (from at least 6 to at least 2), and 
reducing the number of cattle and bison required for field trials (from 
a minimum of 1500 to a minimum of 300); 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.
    Numerous commenters expressed support for this addition and the 
changes we proposed to make to the document. These commenters noted 
that streamlining the approval process for EID devices will ensure 
availability of tags, insulate against supply chain disruptions, and 
help facilitate the introduction of new technologies.
    We agree with the commenters. As stated in the proposed rule, our 
changes are meant to encourage manufacturers to seek APHIS approval of 
new official identification devices.
    One commenter expressed concern regarding reducing the timeframe 
before allowing unlimited sales of a device from 24 months to 12 
months, stating that this could compromise assurance of the devices' 
quality and longevity.
    We are making no changes in response to the commenter. Tag 
retention, durability, safety, and efficacy are of utmost importance to 
APHIS. Our approval process for EID eartags continues to require 
testing and field trials or performance data that ensure the eartags 
meet the required standards. We note the benchmark of unlimited sales 
is conditional and does not constitute full approval. The timeframe for 
full approval will remain 36 months (30 for swine); prior to full 
approval, manufacturers are required to have a mechanism in place to 
collect and report tag failure data to APHIS.
    We believe that the tag standards listed in the OAIDS, including 
the aforementioned 12-month timeframe for unlimited sales, will 
maintain a high standard of quality without discouraging manufacturers 
from applying for official status. As we noted in the proposed rule, we 
determined that requiring manufacturers to wait 24 months before 
allowing unlimited sales of a device that met the required performance 
standards could have been inhibiting manufacturers from seeking APHIS 
approval.
    One commenter stated that the proposed changes to the OAIDS render 
the proposed rule a major rule, as the document allows for ``regulatory 
flexibility.''
    Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), major/non-major 
designations occur at the final rule stage and are the purview of the 
Office of Management and Budget based on an assessment of expected 
annual costs associated with the rule. APHIS has no discretion to label 
the rule major or not major under the CRA. However, we note that the 
commenter's stated basis for considering the rule major does not align 
with the criteria in the CRA, which is whether the rule is likely to 
result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; 
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 
domestic and export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Two commenters stated we should reduce the required lifespan of a 
device to 3 years from 10 years. One commenter stated 3 years was 
sufficient because the typical lifespan for beef cattle going to 
slaughter is 18-24 months. The other commenter stated a 10-year 
requirement was a hindrance to the adoption of future technologies.
    The commenters are incorrect that the requirements specify that 
tags should have a lifespan of 10 years. The OAIDS states that a tag is 
expected to remain on an animal in a physically functional state for 
the animal's expected lifetime, which, for cattle and bison, is up to 
15 years.
    We disagree with the commenters that tags should only have a 
lifespan of 3 years. Cattle and bison under 18 months of age and cattle 
and bison going

[[Page 39549]]

directly to slaughter are exempt from the requirements for official 
identification, rendering their example irrelevant. Moreover, a device 
that only functions for 3 years would add burdensome costs to 
producers, as they would need to replace tags more frequently. It would 
also make record retention and tracing more difficult, especially for 
longer-lived animals, as the animals would be associated with a 
different identification number every 3 years.

Official Eartag

    The current definition of official eartag reads, ``An 
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 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.'' We proposed to revise this definition to remove 
language referencing the 2014 and 2015 dates, which are no longer 
relevant. Our proposed revised definition reads as follows: ``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.''
    One commenter asked that we establish a standard for a ``high 
retention rate'' to aid State officials in enforcement.
    Retention rates required for approved EID tags have already been 
established in the former Animal Disease Traceability General Standards 
document and are included in the OAIDS. For cattle and bison, device 
loss rates must not exceed 1 percent annually or 3 percent in a 3-year 
period.

Additional Definitions

    One commenter asked us to define the term premises, as one of the 
dictionary definitions for ``premises'' necessitates a deed.
    We are making no changes in response to the commenter, as we 
believe the regulations are sufficiently clear that a premises in part 
86 relates to a geographical location, not a deed. For example, the 
definition of a premises identification number (PIN) in Sec.  86.1 
describes a premises as ``a geographically distinct location.''

Recordkeeping Requirements (Sec.  86.3)

    Section 86.3 addresses recordkeeping requirements for official 
identification. 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. 
We proposed 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 APHIS.
    We also proposed to add a new paragraph (b), which would state that 
records of official identification devices applied by a federally 
accredited veterinarian to a client's animal must be recorded in a 
readily accessible record system to help ensure such records are 
available to APHIS for traceback investigations.
    Finally, we proposed to add a new paragraph (d), stating that 
records required under paragraphs (a) through (c) of Sec.  86.3 must 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 proposed new paragraph 
further required that APHIS be allowed access to all records during 
normal business hours, to include visual inspection and reproduction 
(e.g., photocopying, digital reproduction), and the responsible person 
or entity must submit to APHIS all reports and notices containing the 
information specified within 48 hours of receipt of request for 
records.
    Two commenters asked us to amend Sec.  86.3(a) to allow the person 
distributing EID eartags to provide records to a State official, via a 
spreadsheet, and the State official to enter the records into a State 
or Federal database.
    We are making no changes in response to the commenter, as we 
interpret our proposed change to Sec.  86.3(a) as written to already 
allow for the arrangement described by the commenter. A person who 
provides records to a State official to enter into a State or Federal 
database would fulfill the requirement of entering the official 
identification device distribution records into an acceptable database.
    Two commenters asked us to amend Sec.  86.3(b) (redesignated in our 
proposal as Sec.  86.3(c)) to read, ``Approved livestock facilities 
must keep any ICVIs or alternate documentation that is required by this 
part for covered livestock to enter the facility through interstate 
movement'' rather than ``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.'' The 
commenters stated that this change would clarify that this requirement 
is pertains to livestock moving to the market from out-of-state, rather 
than moving from the market to an out-of-state facility.
    We are making no change in response to the commenter, as we believe 
the regulations as written are sufficiently clear that this paragraph 
refers to livestock that enter an approved livestock facility from out 
of state.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule was not specific enough 
about who was responsible for recordkeeping. The commenter asked 
whether the responsible party was the veterinarian, producer, or tag 
distributor.
    We disagree that these requirements are not sufficiently specific. 
In our proposed rule, Sec.  86.3(a) specifies that any State, Tribe, 
accredited veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes 
official identification devices is responsible for maintaining records 
of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were 
distributed. In other words, the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  
86.3(a) apply to whoever distributes the official identification device 
in any one transaction, whether that be a State, Tribe, accredited 
veterinarian, or other person or entity. We also note that a producer 
applying official identification devices to their own animals, but not 
distributing the official identification devices to anyone else, does 
not fall under Sec.  86.3(a).
    In our proposed rule, Sec.  86.3(c) specifies that approved 
livestock facilities are responsible for keeping ICVIs or alternate 
documentation that is required by part 86 for the interstate movement 
of covered livestock that enter the facility.
    Two commenters stated that we should amend proposed Sec.  86.3(d) 
to place the responsibility for ensuring ``accuracy, quality, 
completeness'' of an ICVI on the veterinarian who created the ICVI, not 
the approved livestock facility that maintains the document.
    The commenters have misinterpreted the regulations. Contrary to the 
commenters' implication, Sec.  86.3(d) does not specifically or 
exclusively place

[[Page 39550]]

responsibility for the accuracy, quality, and completeness of ICVIs on 
approved livestock facilities. Section 86.3(d) requires ``the 
responsible person or entity'' to maintain records required under Sec.  
86.3(a) through (c) and to ensure that they are accurate, of quality, 
and complete. Multiple persons or entities may bear this 
responsibility. Standards for accredited veterinarians in 9 CFR part 
161 stipulate that accredited veterinarians cannot issue documents 
unless they have been ``accurately and fully completed'' (9 CFR 161.4). 
This standard applies to ICVIs or alternative documentation referred to 
in Sec.  86.3(c). The approved livestock market maintaining ICVIs or 
alternative documentation as required by Sec.  86.3(c) is responsible 
for providing accurate information, such as information regarding which 
animals have been sold and to whom, to a veterinarian creating ICVIs 
for animals leaving the facility. Ensuring the continued accuracy, 
quality, and completeness is also a part of the proper maintenance of 
records and is not a standard limited to their creation.
    Some commenters asked us to shorten the 48-hour timeframe for 
entities to submit to APHIS all requested records to 24 hours, stating 
that 48 hours was too long. Other commenters asked us to increase this 
timeframe to 72 hours, as many livestock markets operate 1 day each 
week and may not have the staff availability to meet the 48-hour 
requirement and to align with the potential 72-hour national stop 
movement order for livestock transport.
    We believe that 48 hours is a reasonable compromise. While animal 
traces should occur as quickly as possible, 24 hours may not be 
practical for some markets, due to staffing and availability 
constraints. The 72 hours cited by commenters refers to a potential 
emergency response for highly contagious disease outbreaks, in which 
all animal movement would be stopped for 72 hours. This potential order 
should not affect the ability to provide information necessary for a 
trace, and it would be disadvantageous to delay tracing until the order 
were lifted, as the delay may inhibit the speed of our response to a 
disease threat.
    One commenter asked whether training on database use will be 
provided to those responsible for recordkeeping.
    We are unsure to which database the commenter is referring. The 
proposed rule referred to three different types of recordkeeping: (1) 
for recordkeeping of device distribution, APHIS provides training for 
APHIS databases such as the Animal Identification Management System 
(AIMS); (2) for recordkeeping of applying official ID, accredited 
veterinarians may use AIMS or various medical record systems and 
receive training from their vendors; (3) finally, State officials 
maintain records of ICVIs and tag distributions in the State's 
regulatory database for which APHIS does not provide training.
    One commenter asked what would happen to records if an individual, 
such as an accredited veterinarian, responsible for recordkeeping went 
out of business.
    Tag distributors must maintain records in accordance with Sec.  
86.3, whether or not their business is still in service.
    One commenter asked us to include the specific requirements of 
recordkeeping in the final rule, rather than in the OAIDS, to increase 
compliance.
    We are making no changes in response to the commenter. Apart from 
streamlining the approval process of new EID tags and applying changes 
corresponding to this rulemaking, the OAIDS contains the same 
information as the previous iteration of the document, titled the 
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document. As we have not 
historically experienced problems due to the location of the 
information contained within the Standards document, we do not have 
reason to believe that the OAIDS is an unsuitable location for the 
information contained therein.
    One commenter asked us to add a time requirement of 48 hours for 
entering records of distributed devices into an acceptable database.
    As we have not experienced problems with the timely entrance of 
distribution records into a database, we disagree that specifying a 
time requirement in the regulations is necessary. The entry into a 
database should occur immediately upon distributing the tags, because 
the tags may be applied upon receipt to an animal for immediate 
movement.
    One commenter asked whether a producer who applied tags to their 
animals themselves would be responsible for the recordkeeping 
requirement in Sec.  86.3.
    No. Under Sec.  86.3(a), a person distributing tags must maintain 
for 5 years a record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the 
devices were distributed. If a producer is applying tags to their own 
animals and not distributing tags to another person, this requirement 
does not apply to them.
    One commenter stated that they would prefer if States had 
consistent forms for submitting recordkeeping information regarding EID 
tag distribution to States.
    This is outside the scope of this rulemaking. APHIS does not 
mandate the type of form States must use for this recordkeeping.
    Finally, in reviewing the proposed rule while drafting this final 
rule, we noticed that our proposed Sec.  86.3(a) incorrectly omitted 
mention of distribution records kept by large producer organizations 
that redistribute tags to their members in their own databases. In 
order to prevent the interpretation that this will no longer be 
permissible, we are amending the second sentence of this paragraph to 
state that identification device distribution records must be entered 
by the person distributing the devices into the Tribal, State, Federal, 
or other database acceptable to each government entity.

Official Identification for Cattle and Bison (Sec.  86.4)

    Section 86.4 concerns official documentation required for different 
species. As discussed earlier in this document, we proposed to revise 
Sec.  86.4(a)(1)(i) to add the requirement that, beginning November 5, 
2024, all official eartags sold for or applied to cattle and bison must 
be readable both visually and electronically.
    Some commenters stated that allowing EID tags to be visually 
readable will fail to reduce, or will actually increase, human error as 
individuals would be transcribing 15-digit, rather than 9-digit, 
identification numbers, thus negating the intent of the rule.
    We disagree that requiring EID tags to be visually readable will 
increase the likelihood of human error. The 15-digit identification 
numbers of the AIN numbering system currently used for all approved EID 
eartags begin with the same 6 digits: 840003. The first 3 digits of an 
AIN comprise the country code, which, for the United States, is 840. 
The following 3 digits, 003, signal that the animal has been identified 
using a sequential numbering system from a start number of 
003,000,000,000. As a result, an individual visually reading an EID tag 
would only read 9 unique characters (the characters following 840003). 
These characters are comprised solely of numbers, whereas the 9-digit 
NUES numbers are alpha-numeric. Moreover, EID eartags have readability 
standards, while metal tags with NUES numbers do not. These include 
larger font size and color contrast. Given these comparisons of AIN 
numbers and NUES numbers, it is our view that transcription error is 
not likely to significantly increase from the current

[[Page 39551]]

state when relying on visual read of the eartag; if anything, several 
factors should make it easier, not harder, to transcribe the tag 
number. However, the use of EID tags would allow for an electronic read 
of the tag if a transcription error were believed to have occurred.
    Some commenters asked for clarification about whether using brands 
as official identification would continue to be acceptable. Others 
stated that EID eartags should not replace brands as a means of 
official identification.
    We proposed no changes to the regulations pertaining to, nor did we 
propose to restrict the use of, other methods of official 
identification for cattle and bison authorized by the regulations, 
which 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'' (9 CFR 86.4(a)).
    Some commenters expressed preference for brands over eartags, 
claiming the former to be a more effective and reliable means of 
identification.
    As stated above, this rulemaking does not discontinue brands as an 
official means of animal identification for cattle and bison. Brands 
registered with a recognized brand inspection authority and accompanied 
by an official brand inspection certificate remain an official means of 
identification for cattle and bison, if agreed upon by the shipping and 
receiving State.
    Some commenters expressed concern about the retention rates of EID 
eartags that may fall off the animal or may be relatively easy to 
remove.
    We do not agree that tag retention is a greater issue for EID tags 
than metal tags. APHIS-approved official identification tags undergo 
rigorous testing and trials to assure a retention rate of 99 percent (a 
loss of no more than 1 percent per year) and are intended for the life 
of the animal. While data on retention rates of metal NUES tags is 
lacking, field experience and anecdotal observation from regulators at 
the State and Federal level suggest that the retention rate of these 
metal tags is lower than our required retention rate of EID eartags. As 
one commenter mentioned, metal tags are not immune from potential 
problems, including tag loss, illegibility, and infection.
    Almost all reported retention issues with EID tags are due to user 
error or use of unofficial tags intended for use for a shorter duration 
in feedlot cattle.
    Regarding removal, it is unlawful to intentionally remove any 
official identification under current regulations in part 86. We 
proposed no change to this regulation.
    A commenter interested in selling alternative identification 
devices that use Bluetooth and GPS technology stated that RFID tags are 
unreliable and subject to fraudulent use.
    As stated above, approved official identification tags undergo 
rigorous testing and field trials to ensure they meet our high 
standards for efficacy. The regulations prohibit the fraudulent use and 
recording of official identification. Sections 86.3 and 86.4(d) and (f) 
outline requirements regarding recordkeeping, removal, and sale or 
transfer of devices.
    Two commenters asked for an explanation of the protocol for 
replacing lost EID eartags.
    Procedures for replacing any lost official identification devices 
are outlined in Sec.  86.4(d) and remain unchanged as a result of this 
rulemaking.
    Two commenters asked whether tags can be applied to animals 
directly by producers, or whether tags must be applied at approved 
tagging sites. One of these commenters stated that it should be 
permissible for producers to apply tags themselves.
    Current regulations do not stipulate that the tags can only be 
applied at approved tagging sites. If a producer desires, they may 
purchase tags directly from a vendor and apply the tags to their own 
animals. In this case, the producer has no recordkeeping requirement 
regarding tag distribution.
    Some commenters expressed concern that tags produced in foreign 
countries may compromise national security. Commenters also expressed 
concern that foreign-sourced tags could increase the vulnerability of 
the United States to supply chain sabotage.
    Commenters provided no evidence to support the contentions that 
tags produced in foreign countries may ``compromise national security'' 
or increase the vulnerability of the United States to ``supply chain 
sabotage.'' However, all APHIS purchasing is compliant with all Federal 
contracting laws and regulations and with the Buy American Act (41 
U.S.C. 8301-8303). This has always been true of contract purchasing by 
APHIS for the Animal Disease Traceability Program.
    One commenter stated that PINs should not be a requirement to 
acquire and apply EID tags as that information can be gathered on other 
documents, such as health certificates.
    The PIN is defined in 9 CFR 86.1 as a nationally unique number 
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to 
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or 
Federal animal health authority a geographically distinct location from 
other premises. All currently approved EID eartags (RFID AIN ``840'' 
eartags) are associated with a PIN or a State location identification 
number (LID), inasmuch as a PIN or a LID is required for purchase of 
the tags (as stated in the OAIDS). A PIN is the numerical equivalent of 
a 911 postal address or a GPS number. A LID is the State-managed 
equivalent for producers who prefer to have the State store their 
information, rather than the Federal Government.
    The commenter did not explain their specific concerns regarding 
PINs. That being said, we note that a PIN or LID is associated with the 
location where cattle are tagged, rather than the location of the 
cattle owner. Cattle may move to new locations that may have different 
PINs, LIDs, or new owners at will, but the PIN or LID associated with 
the location where the tag was placed on the animals remains specific 
to that location, thus facilitating traceback of the animals to that 
location when needed.
    Health certificates cannot substitute for a PIN number because 
although information on health certificates include the location where 
the animal was loaded for interstate movement and destination location; 
they do not necessarily provide the location where a tag was placed on 
the animal.
    Multiple commenters agreed with our decision to use language in the 
regulations to keep EID technology-neutral. Other commenters expressed 
support for their various preferred identification technologies, which 
included UHF, biometric, Bluetooth, and satellite geolocation. 
Commenters also asked whether high frequency or low frequency RFID tags 
would be the required or recommended standard.
    We are neither requiring nor recommending any one type of EID 
eartag over another. Maintaining technological neutrality in the 
regulations will allow APHIS to adapt to technological developments and 
conduct animal disease traceability as rapidly and accurately as 
possible. So long as devices meet the standards, including for 
retention and safety, laid out in the OAIDS, and are readable both 
electronically and visually, they may be approved for use by APHIS. 
Producers will be able to decide which approved technology works best 
for them, based on their individual circumstances.

[[Page 39552]]

    Some commenters stated that EID infrastructure should also support 
non-ADT uses.
    EID infrastructure already supports non-ADT uses. For example, many 
dairies use EID tags to tie individual animals to production and 
management records. That information is separate from and not collected 
by the ADT program.
    One commenter asked whether, in the event of an emergency, State 
departments of agriculture would be able to use orange EID tags 
typically used for heifer calves for other animals.
    States are free to distribute any color of EID tag that is 
available. While orange tags are typically reserved for brucellosis 
vaccinates, this is not a requirement in the regulations.
    Two commenters expressed concern regarding the purported difficulty 
of applying EID eartags. The commenters mentioned the difficulty of 
organizing tags not packed in sequential order and applying tags in 
cold conditions, as well as risk of fatigue and trauma to the hands.
    The OAIDS provides guidance for packaging eartags, and states that 
packaging must maintain the tags in sequential order. The commenters do 
not provide evidence to support the implication that applying EID 
eartags is significantly more difficult in cold conditions or prone to 
causing fatigue and trauma to the hands than applying metal eartags or 
other forms of approved official identification, such as brands.
    One commenter stated that the USDA should target tag distribution 
to cattle newly subject to the revised definition of dairy cattle, as 
it now includes beef/dairy cross bred cattle.
    As noted in the economic analysis that accompanied the proposed 
rule, historically, APHIS has instructed dairy cattle operations that 
beef/dairy cross bred cattle should follow the same traceability 
regulatory requirements as purebred dairy cattle. Thus, official 
identification requirements applied to these animals prior to the 
implementation of this final rule and no targeted distribution is 
necessary.
    One commenter stated that we should maintain the current use of AIN 
Device Managers to distribute official identification.
    This final rule makes no changes to the current use of AIN Device 
Managers. Individuals may continue to distribute AIN devices by 
becoming AIN Device Managers. More information regarding this process 
can be found in the OAIDS.
    One commenter volunteered to be a tag distributor for bison 
producers.
    The commenter may reference the OAIDS document for further 
information on how to become an AIN Device Manager and distribute tags.
    Several commenters stated that the regulations should specify that 
only 840-series, and not 900-series, EID tags may be used as official 
identification on domestic cattle because 900-series tags are not 
unique in their official identification. 840-series tags refer to EID 
eartags that begin with the prefix ``840'' and are manufactured using 
the AIN numbering system for the official identification of individual 
animals born in the United States. 900-series tags refer to eartags 
that begin with the prefix ``900,'' and are not manufactured for the 
official identification of individual animals in the United States, but 
are sometimes used by producers for individual livestock management 
purposes.
    We believe the regulations already address the commenters' concern 
about the need for nationally unique numbers. Per the definition of 
official eartag, an official eartag is an identification tag that bears 
an official identification number. The regulations state that an 
official identification number is a nationally unique number that is 
permanently associated with an animal and adheres to the NUES system, 
AIN system, location-based number system, flock-based number system, or 
any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for the 
official identification of animals.
    Currently, all APHIS-approved EID eartags available for domestic 
animals are manufactured using the 840-series AIN numbering system. 
900-series tags do not meet the definition of an official eartag, as 
they do not bear an official identification number. Although 900-series 
tags may be suitable for non-ADT uses, they are not approved for use as 
official ID for animals born in the United States.
    We disagree that the regulations should require the use of any 
specific numbering system. As stated in the proposed rule, this 
flexibility will allow for the possibility that different numbering 
systems may be developed and used in the future on EID eartags. 
Additionally, situations may arise that require the use of official ID 
that is not an 840-series tag. For example, cattle not born in the 
United States may have official identification from the country of 
origin or an alternate official ID approved by APHIS to designate a 
non-U.S. born animal. The NUES numbering system is also allowed under 
the regulations for official tags. Because NUES eartags applied to 
animals before November 5, 2024 will still be recognized as official 
for the lifetime of those animals, the NUES numbering format will still 
be in use for some time after that.
    Several commenters encouraged the USDA to allow the use of all 
currently used EID tags as official identification for ADT purposes. 
Two commenters specifically asked that we allow 900-series tags to be 
used for official identification, as these tags are already used by 
some producers.
    We disagree with the commenters. Nine hundred-series EID eartags 
currently used by producers for livestock management purposes do not 
fulfil the requirements of EID eartags approved by APHIS for official 
identification purposes. APHIS approves the use of EID eartags for 
official identification that meet certain standards for durability, 
efficacy, and safety. These standards are essential to ensuring that 
methods of official identification meet industry needs and are retained 
and effective for the purpose of traceability.
    A 900-series tag could provide traceability for a single movement; 
however, because the tag is not associated with an official 
identification number, the initial distribution location and additional 
movements would not be tracked or readily available for officials 
performing disease traces. Additionally, other characteristics of the 
900-series tags make them unsuitable for traceability. For example, it 
is illegal to remove 840-series tags, while there is no regulation 
preventing the removal, replacement, or reuse of 900-series tags.
    One commenter asked whether official ID tags can be reused after 
the death of an animal.
    Tags cannot be reused. A requirement of official identification 
tags is that they are unique and not reusable. This prohibition 
prevents an animal in a disease trace from being confused with another 
animal that should not be included in the trace.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not address the 
problem of retiring eartags of dead livestock and asked about protocol 
in such situations.
    The commenter is correct that this proposal does not address tag 
retirement protocols. Expired cattle generally do not pose a high 
disease threat, although a lack of tag retirement data can pose 
challenges in disease traces if the final disposition of the animal is 
unknown. Retiring tags may become more feasible once EID is more 
commonly used for official identification. As this rulemaking would 
increase the use of EID, it may allow us to address this issue in the 
future.
    Some commenters stated that electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) 
emitted by

[[Page 39553]]

RFID technology have the potential to harm humans and animals.
    We do not agree with this comment. RFID tags are passive devices 
and do not emit EMFs. The Food and Drug Administration is not aware of 
any adverse health effects associated with RFID technology.
    Several commenters asked us to require a specific placement and 
color for EID eartags for the sake of simplicity and uniformity.
    The commenters do not provide evidence of the potential benefits of 
adding such a requirement. APHIS-approved official identification 
eartags are available in multiple colors from several manufacturers and 
vendors. The color orange is typically reserved by manufacturers for 
official EID tags to be used in official calfhood vaccinates for 
brucellosis, although the regulations do not require this. Otherwise, 
the color of the tags is at the owner's discretion. The placement of 
official RFID tags is recommended in the left ear, but there is no such 
regulatory requirement, and the tags may be placed in either ear at the 
owner's discretion.
    One commenter stated that they have encountered problems finding 
the identity of cattle with EID eartags, as they were unable to obtain 
identifying information from the State about a stray bull found on a 
ranch that had an 840-series eartag for identification.
    Producer data confidentiality is highly valued and protected. 
Availability of identifying information is limited to regulatory 
officials for the purpose of disease tracing activities and not 
available to the general public.
    Several commenters asked that we address the issue of imported 
cattle that have lost their eartags. One of these commenters stated 
that they have encountered difficulties due to being unable to apply an 
840-series tag to imported cattle that have lost their eartags.
    It is not possible to tag animals born outside of the United States 
with 840-series tags as 840 is the country code for the United States. 
We recognize this is an issue and are working to provide an acceptable 
EID alternative for imported cattle that lose their official 
identification. However, this is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Some commenters stated that branding as a method of official 
identification should be phased out, citing animal welfare concerns. 
One commenter stated that brands should not be used for animal disease 
traceability, but rather restricted to use for proof of ownership.
    The scope of this rulemaking is limited to official eartags for 
cattle and bison. Other authorized forms of official identification, 
including branding, are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter stated that ``male'' parts of RFID tags should be 
more readily available from manufacturers, as these parts can fail.
    APHIS is not aware of issues specific to ``male'' ends of RFID 
tags. APHIS recommends that anyone encountering such issues contact the 
relevant tag distributor or manufacturers, as manufacturers are 
required to report tag issues to APHIS.

Movement Within Slaughter Channels

    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.
    To address this potential gap in traceability, we proposed to add 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(D) to Sec.  86.4 to 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.''
    This paragraph clarifies 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.
    Two commenters expressed their support for this proposed change, 
noting that it would expedite disease tracking.
    Two commenters recommended improvements to the proposed new 
language in Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(ii)(D) to allow cattle and bison leaving a 
slaughter establishment to be moved to a USDA-approved livestock 
auction (in addition to another slaughter establishment or feedlot).
    We disagree with the commenters. Proposed paragraph Sec.  86.4 
(b)(1)(ii)(D) clarifies that animals may only move to another slaughter 
establishment or approved feedlot, with appropriate documentation and 
identification, and must remain in a terminal market. If animals were 
allowed to move from a slaughter facility to a livestock market for 
resale outside of the slaughter channel without official 
identification, they could circumvent the traceability regulations 
required for animals that would otherwise move interstate to a market, 
and thus become untraceable.
    Multiple commenters asked us to add a definition of slaughter 
channels in order to provide clear regulations about other movements of 
cattle, including slaughter channel cattle not moving from points of 
sale to slaughter facilities in a timely manner; slaughter channel 
cattle being diverted from slaughter channels; and slaughter cattle 
moving to unapproved feed yards and holding pens. One commenter asked 
us to replace the phrase ``slaughter facility'' in Sec.  86.4 with the 
term ``slaughter channel'' to clarify that livestock located anywhere 
in a slaughter channel are subject to the additional health and 
traceability requirements of the proposed rule.
    We disagree with the commenters that a definition of slaughter 
channel, or a replacement of the term ``slaughter facility'' with the 
term ``slaughter channel,'' is needed, because any movement not 
specifically described as an exemption in Sec.  86.4 requires the 
animals to meet all requirements for official identification. This 
includes the examples provided by the commenter if the cattle involved 
do not meet the requirements for the exemptions.

EID in Use of More Than One Official Eartag

    Section 86.4(c) concerns situations in which the use of more than 
one official eartag is allowed. We proposed to remove references to 
visual-only eartags in this section.
    Specifically, current paragraph (c)(3) of Sec.  86.4 allows the 
application of a radio frequency identification or visual-only tag 
eartag with an animal identification number (AIN) having an 840 prefix 
to animals already tagged with NUES tags and/or brucellosis vaccination 
eartags. Because visual-only eartags will no longer be allowed as 
official identification under part 86, we proposed to revise this 
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.

[[Page 39554]]

    We also proposed to remove Sec.  86.4(c)(4), which states that a 
brucellosis vaccination visual eartag with a NUES number may be applied 
to an animal that is already officially identified with one or more 
official eartags. 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.
    A commenter expressed confusion about whether and why it was 
possible for an animal to have multiple forms of official 
identification.
    Section 86.4(c) allows for the use of more than one official eartag 
in certain situations when the need to maintain the identity of an 
animal is intensified, such as for export shipments, quarantined herds, 
field trials, experiments, or disease surveys. Multiple forms of 
official identification are also allowed if an individual wishes to 
apply a visually and electronically readable official eartag to an 
animal that is currently identified with non-EID official eartags or 
vaccination tags. Our proposed rule did not include changes to the 
situations in which an animal is allowed multiple forms of official 
identification. To mitigate identification challenges associated with 
these situations, additional recordkeeping is required in these 
instances to ensure that adequate traceability is maintained.

Data Security

    Many commenters expressed concerns related to data security and 
confidentiality. Commenters sought clarity about what data APHIS would 
collect when the requirement is implemented, where the data would be 
stored, and with whom it would be shared.
    Commenters did not elaborate on their specific data concerns in 
great detail. APHIS takes care to protect personally identifiable 
information (PII) and proprietary business information in its 
recordkeeping, in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a).\15\ Moreover, an EID tag is encoded with a number but no owner-
specific information (e.g., a number that identifies the animal, such 
as 840 001 018 932 052 or 42CXP9965).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the systems of records notice for the animal disease 
traceability program, found at https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2011-0057-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that APHIS and State animal disease traceability 
databases are not public databases. They are accessible only to Federal 
and State officials who meet strict permissions and security 
requirements; therefore, proprietary information will not be available 
to competitors or unauthorized individuals.
    Some commenters expressed the view that producer information should 
be exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. 552) 
requirements, in order to preserve the confidentiality of that 
information for producers.
    We are making no change in response to the comments, as APHIS does 
not have the authority to define or redefine exemptions to FOIA. We can 
only apply FOIA consistent with the statute and caselaw.
    That being said, we believe that there are adequate provisions in 
the law for the protection of confidential producer data. Some 
commenters appear to have the misconception that all information in 
Federal databases is available on request; however, FOIA and the 
Privacy Act each provide substantial protections for producer 
information, including the protection of financial and personal 
identifying information. Under FOIA, Exemption 4 protects trade secrets 
or commercial or financial information that is confidential or 
privileged; and Exemption 6 protects information that, if disclosed, 
would invade another individual's personal privacy. The Privacy Act 
protects personal information held by the Federal Government by 
preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals 
also have the right to review such information, request corrections, 
and be informed of any disclosures. FOIA facilitates these processes.
    Some commenters stated that the proposed rule does not adequately 
protect producers' data from potential cyberattacks or security 
breaches.
    The commenters did not provide details regarding their specific 
concerns regarding these hypothetical threats. Both State and Federal 
databases undergo extensive security testing, restrictions, and 
permission for access to assure that only authorized individuals may 
access data. Both APHIS and States employ substantial teams of security 
and information technology experts to assure data security and 
integrity.
    Commenters expressed differing views regarding where to keep animal 
identification data collected as a result of this rulemaking. Some 
commenters stated that a ``government'' or ``national'' database was 
needed, others stated that data should be held in State databases and 
shared with Federal officials when needed, while others stated that 
data should be kept in private databases to protect confidentiality.
    Animal traceability data and disease information are kept in 
various Federal as well as State databases, with as-needed access 
restricted to the State and Federal officials responsible for managing 
high-impact diseases of the cattle industry. Device distribution 
records may also be stored in databases kept by producer organizations 
redistributing tags. As noted earlier, State and Federal databases 
undergo extensive security testing, restrictions, and permission for 
access, and both APHIS and State agencies employ teams of security and 
information technology experts to ensure data integrity and security.
    One commenter stated that producers should have access to records 
of the animals produced on their farm after the animals leave the farm.
    We disagree with the commenter, as this would compromise producer 
data confidentiality. Availability of information stored in APHIS and 
State animal disease traceability databases is limited to regulatory 
officials for the purpose of disease tracing activities.
    One commenter stated that data integrity needs to be maintained 
when tags are retired and then reused.
    Tags used for official identification are not reused.
    One commenter stated that RFID technology can elicit and transmit 
information from clothing, appliances, and vehicles, placing personal 
information at risk.
    The commenter provides no evidence to support this claim. RFID tags 
that are currently approved for official use by APHIS are passive tags. 
A passive tag is powered only by the reader emitting a radio signal, 
which allows the antenna within the tag to emit a signal back to the 
reader. There is no active power source within the tag, and the tag is 
unable to emit any signal without first being exposed to an RFID 
reader. There are no batteries associated with passive RFID tags.
    Some commenters stated that data collection should be minimal, and 
access to it should be limited to animal disease traceability purposes.
    APHIS agrees. Data collection required by this final rule is 
limited to the necessary information for adequate animal disease 
traceability. Access to animal traceability data and disease 
information kept in Federal and State databases is restricted to the 
State and Federal officials responsible for managing high-impact 
diseases of the cattle industry.
    One commenter recommended APHIS make improvements to information

[[Page 39555]]

database systems to facilitate sharing of data between agencies.
    The commenter did not detail specific improvements they believe 
should be made. Enhanced sharing of electronic information with 
appropriate permissions is one of the ADT program's goals. In the past, 
we have supported this goal by efforts such as funding electronic 
databases through cooperative agreements, and we intend to continue 
doing so as funding allows.
    One commenter stated that the software available from APHIS is not 
user-friendly and asked us to provide software that will better meet 
the requirements of this rule.
    We are unsure to what software the commenter is referring.

Legal Issues

    A commenter stated that APHIS lacks authority to require the use of 
EID eartags, as the requirement does not directly and actively detect, 
control, or eradicate pests or diseases, nor is it an operation or 
measure such as ``drawing of blood and diagnostic testing'' authorized 
by 7 U.S.C. 8308.
    The legal basis for this rulemaking is the AHPA, under 7 U.S.C. 
8305, by which the Secretary of Agriculture may restrict the movement 
in interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance 
if the Secretary determines that the restriction is necessary to 
prevent the introduction into or dissemination within the United States 
of any pest or disease of livestock. This authority is not limited to, 
as the commenter implies, the examples of ``drawing of blood and 
diagnostic testing of animals'' under 7 U.S.C. 8308. Moreover, 7 U.S.C. 
8308 supports, rather than undercuts, this rulemaking; it provides the 
agency authority to ``carry out operations and measures to detect, 
control, or eradicate any pest or disease of livestock,'' including but 
not limited to diagnostic testing. Tracking via EID eartags is plainly 
a measure for these activities; it inherently facilitates them by 
allowing APHIS to quickly and easily identify livestock for the 
detection, control, or eradication of any livestock pest or disease.
    One of these commenters further stated that APHIS lacked the 
authority to require EID tags because this requirement is not a valid 
prohibition or restriction in interstate commerce authorized by 7 
U.S.C. 8305.
    We disagree with the commenter. The Secretary of Agriculture is 
authorized by 7 U.S.C. 8305 to prohibit or restrict the movement in 
interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if 
the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is 
necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any pest or 
disease of livestock. The ADT program helps prevent the dissemination 
of disease by helping minimize the effects of disease outbreaks through 
restrictions, such as the EID eartag requirement, that the agency has 
determined are necessary for efficient livestock tracing.
    We also note that this final rule does not require producers to 
purchase and affix EID eartags to their cattle as the only acceptable 
official identification device or method to meet the official 
identification requirements for interstate movement; the regulations 
continue to list eartags as one of several forms of authorized official 
identification, which also include tattoos and brands when accepted by 
State officials in the sending and receiving States.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed rule violates the Tenth 
Amendment as certain States have codified into State law their own 
options for animal identification.
    The Tenth Amendment provides that ``powers not delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Regulating 
interstate commerce, which includes the interstate movement of animals, 
is a power delegated to Congress as an enumerated power under the 
Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Exercising this enumerated power 
through the AHPA, Congress has delegated to the Secretary of 
Agriculture the authority to restrict the movement in interstate 
commerce of any animal or article necessary to prevent the introduction 
into or dissemination within the United States of any pest or disease 
of livestock. The Tenth Amendment does not refute APHIS' authority to 
restrict the interstate movement of animals for this purpose and, in 
turn, displace a State's exercise of its regulatory power.
    Two commenters stated that this rulemaking violated the intent of 
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. One of these commenters 
stated that the USDA was falsely asserting that Congress has delegated 
and granted it broad powers which are implied, plenary, and inherent. 
The commenter noted that Congress has not mandated an electronic animal 
identification scheme, and therefore APHIS lacks the authority to 
impose one.
    We did not assert that Congress has granted the USDA ``broad powers 
which are implied, plenary and inherent.'' Under the AHPA, Congress has 
delegated authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate 
regulations to prevent the introduction into the United States and the 
dissemination within the United States of any pest or disease of 
livestock. This rulemaking is consistent with Congress's clear, 
intelligible directive to protect animal health because it is intended 
to prevent the introduction and dissemination of livestock pests or 
diseases by improving the existing ADT program. USDA has issued this 
rulemaking based on Congress's grant of clear authority to it, not 
based on some implied or vague powers. Additionally, electronic animal 
identification represents a logical, modest update to the ADT program 
that is within USDA's mandate to implement.
    Two commenters stated that this rulemaking violates the Fourth 
Amendment. One of these commenters stated that this was because 
requiring EID eartags constituted ``unconstitutionally seizing the 
cattle producers [sic] value-added information without compensation.'' 
The commenter also alleged that the rulemaking violates the Fifth 
Amendment because the ``value-added information associated with the 
mandatory EID eartags further constitutes the private property of the 
owner of the cattle.''
    The requirement for official EID tags does not involve seizing a 
producer's value-added information. Some producers use EID eartags to 
participate in value-added verification programs overseen by the AMS. 
Producers may, but are not required, to use official EID eartags to 
participate in these verification programs and, alternatively, may also 
use 900-series tags. The premiums producers are paid for cattle 
participating in these verification programs are a result of the 
specific management practices required by said programs. While 
information regarding such management practices may be correlated with 
an animal's EID number, this information is kept in the hands of the 
producer; the producer's possession or use of the information is not 
interfered with at all, and, in any event, this information is not the 
same as the information collected for animal disease traceability 
purposes that is kept in State and Federal databases. Information 
correlated with an animal's EID number kept in State and Federal 
databases is limited to information necessary for disease tracing.
    A commenter stated that this rulemaking violated Executive Orders 
14005 and 14017 by requiring producers to purchase EID eartags 
manufactured in China. Another commenter stated that this rulemaking 
should adhere to Executive Order 14005 and be made in the United 
States.

[[Page 39556]]

    Executive Orders 14005 and 14017 apply only to Federal Government 
purchases. APHIS abides by the Executive Orders and complies with the 
Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 8301-8303).
    We also note that this rulemaking does not stipulate that producers 
must purchase eartags made in a foreign country. APHIS approves 
official EID tags by any manufacturer, foreign or domestic, that 
fulfils the rigorous criteria listed in the OAIDS. Additionally, as 
noted earlier, eartags are one of several forms of authorized official 
identification. Producers who do not wish to use eartags may use 
another form of authorized official identification, such as tattoos and 
brands when accepted by State officials in the sending and receiving 
States.

Cost and Fairness

    Many commenters opposed the proposed rule because of their belief 
that the cost of purchasing EID tags placed an undue financial burden 
on producers, particularly small farmers and ranchers. Commenters also 
claimed that these costs to producers would fuel consolidation in the 
livestock industry.
    We do not agree with these comments regarding the magnitude of 
costs to the domestic cattle and bison industry, and do not think this 
rulemaking will result in further consolidation of the cattle industry. 
The commenters who raised these concerns often based them on the belief 
that official identification would be required for all or most cattle 
and bison regardless of whether they enter interstate commerce. 
Official identification is not required for all cattle or bison. Under 
the current regulations in Sec.  86.4(b), which this final rule does 
not change, the following categories of cattle and bison are subject to 
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 male dairy cattle 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. 
Cattle and bison are exempted from official identification requirements 
if they are going directly to slaughter. Thus, large categories of 
cattle, such as feeder cattle or cull cattle going to slaughter, are 
not subject to the identification requirements. In addition, cattle and 
bison only require official identification under the regulations if 
they move interstate or are in Federal or State disease programs. 
Accordingly, many small producers will be exempted because they never 
move cattle interstate, so their cattle do not require official 
identification.
    While we acknowledge the commenters' concern over consolidation of 
the cattle industry, we disagree that an EID tag requirement would 
cause consolidation. Data from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics 
Service reflect consolidation as a broader trend in the cattle industry 
that is present in both States that have and States that have not 
implemented a State-specific EID tag requirement.
    That being said, we acknowledge that producers may at some point 
have to assume costs associated with purchasing EID tags as a result of 
this rulemaking. Accordingly, we have prepared a regulatory impact 
analysis (RIA) that estimates aggregate annual costs to the domestic 
cattle and bison industry as a result of the rule. The analysis 
estimates, conservatively, that 11 million cattle and bison are tagged 
with visual official identification per year to fulfill official 
identification requirements under the regulations. This number 
represents approximately 11 percent to 12 percent of the cattle and 
bison in the domestic inventory. We estimate that these are the average 
percentages of cattle that would be required to have EID tags instead 
of visual-only tags each year under this rule. The cost is estimated to 
be approximately $26.1 million, assuming no Federal funding is 
provided. (APHIS has historically provided funding for EID eartags and 
intends to continue doing so as long as funding is available. Funding 
is discussed in greater detail later in this document.) This equates to 
an average cost of $30.45 per cattle or bison operation each year; or 
based on total industry cash receipts from 2021, approximately 2.5 
cents per $100 (0.025 percent).
    The RIA also articulates the benefits of increased traceability 
that were previously identified in the economic analysis that 
accompanied the 2013 final rule establishing the regulations, 
particularly the foregone liabilities when traceability is not quick or 
accurate, and delineates how EID furthers the aims of efficient and 
accurate traceability that undergird the regulations. The RIA for this 
final rule is available on Regulations.gov as a supporting document for 
this final rule, as well as by contacting the individual listed below 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For reasons discussed in the 2013 
economic analysis and the RIA that accompanies this final rule, it has 
been and continues to be APHIS' position that the benefits associated 
with timely and accurate animal traceability significantly outweigh 
costs to regulated entities.
    Many commenters stated that the rule unfairly favors large 
corporations over small producers. It was stated that small producers 
would have to pay more to comply with the regulations than large 
operations due to bulk discounts offered by EID tag manufacturers. 
Other commenters stated that large corporations were favored because 
they are allowed to use GINs to officially identify their animals.
    The commenters are correct that many EID tag manufacturers 
currently offer lower rates for EID tags bought in bulk. The 
calculations for the average price of an EID tag in the RIA factor in 
these price differences. As noted previously, most small producers will 
not be affected by this rulemaking because they do not move their 
cattle interstate. Small producers that are affected by this rulemaking 
may consider creative ways to capitalize on bulk discounts for EID 
tags, such as cooperative buying. These would be individual business 
decisions based on producer's unique circumstances. We also note that, 
while APHIS cannot commit to long-term funding for EID tags because the 
availability of Federal funding in future fiscal years is dependent on 
annual Congressional appropriations and USDA-APHIS budgetary 
priorities, APHIS has provided these tags free of charge since 2020. 
Funding for EID eartags is discussed in greater detail later in this 
document.
    This rulemaking does not change the regulations regarding the use 
of GINs. Methods of official identification other than official eartags 
are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Some commenters stated that this rulemaking would force small 
operations out of the livestock market and thus undermine the 
resiliency of the nation's food system.
    We disagree that an EID requirement undermines efforts to build and 
maintain a resilient food supply. For the reasons discussed earlier in 
this document, many small producers will not be affected by this 
rulemaking. A resilient food supply relies on the health and wellbeing 
of our nation's livestock, which is the intended outcome of an 
effective and efficient ADT system.
    Some commenters stated that this rulemaking is designed to benefit 
export markets by making it easier for companies to ``ship products 
around the world'' or by protecting international trade markets, at the 
expense of small producers who will bear the cost of the rulemaking.
    We acknowledge possible benefits to export markets and trade 
associated

[[Page 39557]]

with domestic animal disease traceability and EID--these are referenced 
in the RIA that accompanies this final rule. We disagree, however, that 
this final rule is intended to directly benefit cattle and bison 
exporters. This final rule pertains to interstate movement of cattle 
and bison, not the export of cattle and bison, and foreign markets are 
free to set their own import requirements. While it is true that many 
of these requirements currently include EID, that is not within APHIS' 
purview. Furthermore, options already exist for exporters to meet any 
such requirements; many exporters currently use third-party 
verification programs under the purview of AMS to comply with 
traceability requirements of export markets.
    Commenters stated that costs to producers extended beyond the cost 
of EID tags, and included infrastructure such as EID readers, software, 
and labor. A commenter stated that this rulemaking would require 
additional labor for accredited veterinarians to enter data into a 
database, the cost of which would be passed on to producers. It was 
stated that our RIA was flawed because it did not take these costs into 
account.
    We disagree with the commenters. The official identification 
requirement does not require the producer to have hardware (readers) or 
software (computer systems). Readers and software are not required 
because each EID tag also has a visual component. The tag number is 
imprinted on the plastic shell containing the EID portion of the tag. 
The tags can thus be used in the same manner as visual tags by 
producers who do not wish to invest in tag-reading hardware and 
software.
    We disagree that this final rule requires producers to incur 
additional labor costs related to application of tags because the 
regulations already require the placement of official identification. 
The EID requirement only changes the type of eartag that must be used 
for cattle that require official identification and that are officially 
identified using eartags. The labor involved in applying a metal NUES 
eartag should not be any more burdensome than the labor involved in 
applying an EID eartag.
    Likewise, this final rule imposes no new requirement for accredited 
veterinarians to enter data into a database. Accredited veterinarians 
may continue collecting the information already required by the 
regulations in their medical records in the same way they currently do, 
so long as the records are retrievable when a disease outbreak occurs. 
Costs passed on to the producer should only reflect the difference in 
the cost of tags because this final rule does not require any 
additional labor.
    Some commenters stated that APHIS should acknowledge that EID tags 
are meant to be read electronically and update the RIA to account for 
the cost of readers.
    APHIS disagrees that EID tags are meant to be read only 
electronically. As explained above, EID tags must be readable both 
electronically and visually. To ensure the visual readability of 
eartags, the OAIDS requires that EID tags be readable from 30 inches 
with 20/20 vision, while there was no readability standard for metal 
NUES tags.
    Two commenters stated that mandatory EID may increase corporate 
control over the livestock industry by giving packers more information 
about how animals are produced.
    APHIS-approved official eartags only encode the 15-digit animal 
identification number. They do not encode any producer information.
    Many commenters noted that APHIS has provided funding for EID 
eartags in the past and stated that the agency should commit to 
continuing this funding. Some commenters specified that funding should 
be provided for at least the first 2 years after the final rule's 
implementation. Commenters also stated that APHIS should provide 
funding for necessary equipment and related costs, such as readers, 
data management systems, and labor.
    Since 2020, APHIS has provided funding for EID eartags, as well as 
readers and ear taggers. Since the availability of Federal funding in 
future fiscal years is dependent on annual Congressional appropriations 
and USDA-APHIS budgetary priorities, a long-term commitment to this 
funding is not possible. We intend to continue to provide assistance as 
long as funding is available. However, in the absence of Federal 
funding, producers would have to assume costs associated with 
purchasing EID tags. For this reason, we have prepared an assessment 
that estimates annual aggregate costs to the domestic cattle and bison 
industry associated with this rule.
    As noted earlier, this final rule does not require producers or 
livestock markets to have electronic reading equipment or additional 
data management systems, because the official EID tags must be readable 
visually as well as electronically. Producers may continue using EID 
eartags the same way they currently use non-EID, visual-only eartags.
    Finally, for the reasons discussed earlier in this document, we 
disagree that this rulemaking will cause producers to incur additional 
labor costs. The application of an EID eartag should not result in more 
labor costs than the application of a non-EID eartag.
    Two commenters stated that the USDA should continue funding States 
via cooperative agreements. A commenter stated that funding for States 
to support ADT infrastructure should be increased.
    This final rule does not impact the ADT annual cooperative 
agreements with States, Territories, or Tribes. We note that this 
funding is separate from the additional funding that APHIS has provided 
since 2020 to support EID tags and infrastructure. APHIS intends to 
provide funding for EID eartags and infrastructure for as long as 
funding is available, but we are unable to commit to multi-year funding 
for the reasons discussed above.
    Two commenters stated that the RIA was inaccurate in its statement 
that the cost of tags would increase from $3.3 million annually (the 
estimated cost of metal NUES tags) to $29.3 million annually (the 
estimated cost of EID tags), as APHIS has been providing metal NUES 
tags to producers at no cost.
    The commenter is correct that APHIS has provided NUES eartags at no 
cost to producers. The commenter fails to acknowledge, however, that 
APHIS has also been providing EID tags at no cost to producers since 
2020. The estimates in the RIA take into account that funding for 
neither type of tag has been guaranteed in the past, nor can funding 
for EID tags be guaranteed in the future, as this funding depends on 
each year's Agency budget and competing disease priorities.
    Two commenters stated that the estimates for the annual cost of EID 
eartags in the RIA were flawed because they only accounted for costs to 
animals currently being identified by non-EID tags. The commenters 
stated that the estimated number of affected animals did not consider 
animals currently tagged with EID tags, or animals that are required to 
have official identification but are not in compliance with the 
regulations.
    Cattle and bison already identified with official EID eartags are 
already in compliance with this final rule, and therefore would not 
incur new expenses as a result of it. While we recognize that some 
people may not comply with the current regulations regarding official 
identification, we have no means of estimating their number. We also 
note that people currently not in compliance with the regulations are 
unlikely to begin complying as a result of this rulemaking, and 
therefore would not

[[Page 39558]]

increase demand for official identification tags.
    A commenter stated that the RIA does not include information about 
the estimated economic impact for individual operations.
    The commenter is incorrect. The RIA states that, assuming the 
Federal Government does not provide tags free of charge in the future, 
the average cost per operation to purchase EID eartags would range from 
$26.24 to $29.45 for FDX eartags, and from $31.13 to $34.73 for HDX 
eartags.
    A commenter stated that our cost estimates did not consider costs 
incurred for livestock moved interstate after purchased at an in-State 
general auction market. The commenter asked whether the buyer would be 
charged for the cost of eartags or be required to place official 
eartags on the animals they purchased.
    Under the current regulations in Sec.  86.4(b), which this final 
rule does not change, cattle and bison that are required to have 
official identification must be officially identified prior to 
interstate movement unless they are exempted from the requirement for 
official identification. Animal classes and movements that currently 
require official identification will continue to require official 
identification, while animal classes and movements exempted from the 
official identification requirements will continue to be exempted.
    A commenter stated that we should adjust the estimate of impacted 
cattle in the RIA to account for the expanded definition of dairy 
cattle.
    We disagree with the commenter. APHIS has not expanded the 
definition of dairy cattle. The change to the definition of dairy 
cattle is a codification of guidance that APHIS has consistently given 
to producers and State animal health officials, and not a change in 
policy. Beef/dairy cross breeds should already be officially 
identified. We have no indication of noncompliance or controversy 
surrounding this policy. Assuming regulated parties are in compliance, 
beef/dairy crosses are already accounted for in our estimate of 11 
million impacted cattle.
    We acknowledge the possibility that there may be cattle producers 
that did not consider their beef/dairy cross breeds to be dairy cattle, 
and were alerted to our interpretation of the definition of dairy 
cattle to encompass beef/dairy cross breeds by this rulemaking. 
However, as we have no indicators of widespread noncompliance, we 
expect this scenario to be rare and expect the number of cattle to be 
affected by it to be de minimis.
    A commenter asked why the RIA did not report on tracing exercises 
using branded cattle.
    While the regulations allow the use of brands to fulfil the 
requirements for official identification if agreed upon by sending and 
receiving States, brands do not uniquely identify an animal and are not 
intended for animal traceability. Brands are not unique outside of 
local areas, are currently only used in 14 States, and are not 
systematically recorded in national databases. For these reasons, 
tracing exercises are restricted to animals identified with AIN 840-
numbered tags and NUES tags.
    A commenter suggested further cost-benefit analysis to assess the 
impact on cattle and bison producers while ensuring maximum expansion 
of ADT capability.
    The commenter did not specify what they believe our analysis is 
lacking. We believe the RIA comprehensively assesses the costs and 
benefits of this rule.
    Some commenters disagreed with our estimation that the number of 
impacted cattle would be 11 million. A commenter stated that, 
previously, the USDA estimated that the final rule would impact 30 
million cattle that cross State lines annually. Another commenter 
stated that many State identification programs are tied to the Federal 
system, and therefore even cattle that do not cross State lines would 
be impacted by this rulemaking.
    The commenter is mistaken that we previously estimated this 
rulemaking would impact 30 million cattle, and the commenter provides 
no source for this figure. Our estimate of 11 million cattle is based 
on the number of official identification tags that have been used in 
previous years. Many animals that move interstate are exempt from 
official identification requirements, such as beef cattle under 18 
months of age, and animals going to slaughter or to an approved 
livestock market.
    Regarding the concern about State identification programs, APHIS is 
unaware of any intrastate movement requirements that may mimic Federal 
regulations. Moreover, intrastate movement regulations are beyond our 
jurisdiction.
    A commenter stated that the RIA uses outdated 15-year-old data to 
determine that many small entities would not be affected because most 
small entities market through local auctions. The commenter stated that 
this is no longer necessarily the case, as small entities have 
increased their use of online livestock video auctions and alternative 
livestock marketing channels that would require the use of an EID tag. 
The commenter also stated that market consolidation has reduced the 
available number of livestock auctions, forcing some small producers to 
market outside their state.
    The RIA uses NAHMS data from 2008 as well as from 2017 to determine 
that small operations are less likely to move cattle interstate. Data 
from the 2008 NAHMS report indicated that 82 percent to 88 percent of 
beef cattle were marketed through general auction markets. These 
markets tend to be in-state auctions or out-of-state APHIS approved 
markets, for which official identification is not required. Data from 
the 2017 NAHMS report further indicated that small operations were most 
likely to use auction markets, while larger producers used auctions as 
well as other marketing channels. Although the published literature on 
small sized farms moving cattle interstate is scarce, we believe the 
data from these reports are still applicable and relevant. We are not 
aware of any significant change in marketing practices for small 
producers.
    Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter that small producers 
are forced to market out of State due to market consolidation, as the 
number of APHIS-approved livestock markets has increased steadily each 
year. In 2013, when the ADT rule was implemented, there were 703 active 
APHIS-approved markets; today there are 1,310.
    A commenter stated that a calculated benefit of $30 million per 
year is inaccurate, as the calculation is based on incorrect 
assumptions that EID eartags will reduce the time to detect an 
outbreak, reduce herd surveillance costs, improve practices that 
identify diseased cattle, and reduce the probability of countries 
imposing trade restrictions because of a disease outbreak in cattle.
    APHIS would like to clarify the commentor's misunderstanding. 
Thirty million dollars was our estimate of the additional cost of EID 
tags; we assessed, but did not quantify, expected benefits.
    Although use of EID would not reduce the time it takes to initially 
detect a disease or conduct surveillance, EID reduces the time to find 
diseased and exposed animals. APHIS disease investigations are often 
concluded through quarantine and testing or depopulation of cattle 
herds when the animal of interest is not identifiable, which incurs 
costs for livestock producers as well as APHIS. As explained in the 
RIA, when outbreaks of livestock diseases occur, the use of EID eartags 
can help limit their size and

[[Page 39559]]

scope, thus reducing the number of animals that are depopulated, the 
impact to producers and communities, and the probability that trade 
restrictions are imposed. Additionally, rapid containment of foreign 
animal diseases and identification of affected, exposed, and vaccinated 
animals will expedite the return of export markets, should they close 
in the event of a disease outbreak.
    A commenter stated that, because only approximately eight 
manufacturers have had their EID eartags approved for official use by 
APHIS, this rulemaking creates an oligopoly of eartag manufacturers on 
which producers are forced to rely.
    This rulemaking does not in any way restrict new manufacturers from 
applying for approval of their eartags for use as official 
identification. In fact, changes proposed in this rulemaking streamline 
the approval process for new EID devices in order to encourage new 
manufacturers to enter the market. APHIS will continue to approve 
official identification tags from new companies that are in compliance 
with our regulations.
    A commenter stated that producers need assurance that eartags and 
related infrastructure will be available at a reasonable price.
    APHIS will continue to approve eartags for official identification. 
As noted earlier, this final rule does not require the use of 
infrastructure, such as readers, because tags are required to have a 
visual component.
    A commenter asked us to include an assessment of biometric tools 
for official identification that have the potential to reduce costs per 
head of cattle.
    The RIA includes in its assessment the types of EID eartags that 
are currently approved for use, which include FDX and HDX RFID tags. 
APHIS would consider any type of alternate EID methods that are 
supported by credible research.
    Two commenters stated that future new EID technologies mentioned in 
the proposed rule could result in higher costs for producers.
    The RIA estimated costs to producers based on EID technology 
available and approved for use today, which is currently limited to 
RFID. In the proposed rule, we stated that we refer to EID, rather than 
RFID, tags in the regulations in order to allow for other 
electronically readable technology, should it become available in the 
future. Just as referring to EID would not limit official eartags to 
the technology available today, it would also not limit official 
eartags to a hypothetical higher-cost technology available in the 
future. Maintaining technological neutrality in the regulations 
provides flexibility for the regulated community to choose the 
technology that best meets their individual needs, cost being one 
consideration.
    Some commenters stated that ADT raises fear of market manipulation 
by multinational packing corporations or the government.
    The commenters did not elaborate on their specific concerns 
regarding market manipulation and provided no supporting evidence of 
this hypothetical situation. As discussed earlier in this document, 
APHIS protects personally identifiable information (PII) and 
proprietary business information in its recordkeeping.
    A commenter stated that the requirement for ICVIs is an added 
expense.
    The commenter is incorrect. Cattle and bison to which official 
identification requirements apply are already required to be 
accompanied by an ICVI or alternate movement document before moving 
interstate. We did not propose to substantively change any regulations 
pertaining to ICVIs. Rather, we proposed to make an editorial change to 
the definition of ICVIs to account for the use of electronic ICVIs in 
addition to paper ones.
    A commenter stated that this rulemaking will result in the 
elimination of incentive programs that encourage producers to adopt 
EID, which may have been the only way some producers could afford the 
technology.
    We believe that the ``incentive programs'' to which the commenter 
is referring are the verification programs overseen by AMS. We disagree 
that this rulemaking will necessarily eliminate these verification 
programs. Verification programs can fulfill trading partners' 
requirements for traceability from birth to slaughter as well as 
additional recordkeeping requirements for exported cattle. Because the 
current regulations and this rulemaking do not fulfil these 
requirements, we expect continued need for verification programs.

Miscellaneous

    There were a number of comments that did not fall into any of the 
categories listed above.
    A commenter asked for clarification on the meaning of preemption 
language in Sec.  86.8 and the preemption language mentioned in the 
proposed rule relevant to Executive Order 12899 (sic).
    Section 86.8 provides that States and Tribes may not specify an 
official identification device or method for interstate movement if the 
regulations allow for multiple devices or methods, nor may a receiving 
State or Tribe impose requirements that would require the shipping 
State or Tribe to develop a particular type of system or alter an 
existing system in order to meet the requirements. There was no 
Executive Order 12899 language in the proposed rule; however, we 
believe the commenter is referring to Executive Order 12988, which was 
referenced, and transposed the numbers. The 12988 language in the 
preamble of the proposed rule, in contrast, has the effect of stating 
that, if finalized, State laws that conflict with the specific 
provisions of this rulemaking would be preempted. For example, a 
State's animal identification regulations could not continue to allow 
for non-EID forms of official identification of cattle and bison that 
are subject to the ADT regulations.
    We emphasize that the regulations in part 86 apply only to 
interstate movement; States may develop their own official 
identification requirements for intrastate movement that apply after an 
animal arrives from a shipping State or may otherwise impose in-State 
requirements for the cattle once the movement has occurred.
    The same commenter asked whether a State could impose official 
identification importation requirements for classes of animals 
otherwise exempt in the ADT rule.
    The final rule \16\ that established Sec.  86.8 indicated that 
States may require the official identification of classes of animals 
that are exempt under our regulations, provided that the receiving 
State's requirement does not require the shipping State to develop a 
particular type of system or alter an existing system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same commenter asked whether a State could restrict the types 
of official identification devices required for imported animals when 
the ADT rule permits additional approved methods of identification for 
the species, such as restricting the use of GINs for the movement of 
pigs and instead requiring individual animal IDs. The commenter asked 
us to amend the regulations to allow a State to impose these additional 
requirements if they are not currently permissible.
    Because the current regulations allow for group or lot 
identification as a means of official identification, restricting the 
use of GINs and requiring individual animal ID for pigs, or cattle or 
bison as applicable to this rulemaking, is prohibited under Sec.  86.8.

[[Page 39560]]

    Amending Sec.  86.8 as requested is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, and one of the amendments requested by the commenter goes 
against the stated aims of the ADT program.
    Finally, the same commenter asked us to explain the enabling 
legislation for Sec.  86.8.
    The enabling legislation for Sec.  86.8 is the AHPA.
    Two commenters stated that this rulemaking would reduce the speed 
of commerce. Conversely, another commenter stated that EID allows for 
the collection of animal movement data at the speed of commerce.
    We disagree with the commenters who stated the rule would reduce 
the speed of commerce. EID and electronic records have the potential to 
increase the efficiency and speed of routine operations in the cattle 
and bison industry. EID tags allow staff to read animals' 
identification numbers without having to restrain or handle the cattle 
or bison. For cattle or bison requiring ICVIs, electronic tags also 
allow veterinarians to rapidly and accurately complete health 
certificates and movement documentation without slowing the speed of 
commerce.
    One commenter asked that we amend Sec.  86.5(c)(7)(i) to require 
that the official identification numbers of cattle and bison are 
recorded during the transfer from an approved livestock facility 
directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment.
    We will consider the commenters' suggestion; however, this is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked us to state that forms used for interstate 
poultry movement must meet the same accuracy and clarity criteria that 
pertain to ICVIs for poultry and other species.
    We will consider the commenters' suggestion; however, this is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked us to create a standardized ICVI form.
    This is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We note that all ICVI 
forms are required to contain the same information, which is listed 
under the definition of interstate certificate of veterinary inspection 
(ICVI) in Sec.  86.1.
    One commenter stated that this rulemaking could reduce the use of 
the brucellosis vaccine because the use of EID tags would double the 
cost of brucellosis vaccination.
    APHIS requires brucellosis vaccination for cattle in the Greater 
Yellowstone Area. Cattle that are vaccinated for brucellosis are 
required to have official identification and currently use metal 
official NUES tags. While we acknowledge that EID tags are more 
expensive than metal NUES tags, and discuss these differences in cost 
in the RIA, we disagree with, and the commenter provides no evidence to 
support, the speculation that these costs would discourage compliance 
with the requirement for brucellosis vaccination.
    Some commenters asked us to remove the requirement to tattoo 
animals that receive the brucellosis vaccine because correct placement 
of an EID eartag makes tattoo placement difficult.
    We disagree with the commenters that EID tag placement interferes 
with brucellosis tattoo placement. While official EID tags may be 
placed in either ear, the recommended placement is the left ear to 
avoid interference with the brucellosis tattoo, which is required on 
the right ear.
    One commenter stated that additional education regarding proper tag 
application and retention for veterinarians and producers is necessary.
    APHIS agrees that education assists in proper tag application and 
increased tag retention. We support education through efforts such as 
cooperative agreements and outreach and intend to continue such efforts 
as funding allows.
    One commenter asked for guidance stating that exports from the 
United States to Canada will clearly state requirements for use of an 
approved indicator with the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) 11784.
    The final rule does not pertain to the export of livestock. 
Requirements for exported livestock are found in 9 CFR part 91.
    One commenter asked us to establish performance standards for the 
retention of backtags referenced in Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(i)(C).
    Backtags are not methods of official identification but are 
mentioned in Sec.  86.4(b)(1)(i)(C), in the context of an exemption for 
cattle and bison that are moved interstate from the requirement of 
official identification if certain conditions are met. The existing 
regulations require that backtags used to fulfil this exemption must 
``ensure that the identity of the animal is accurately maintained until 
tagging.'' We believe this adequately addresses the required 
performance of backtags used in this context.
    Two commenters stated that the use of alternative movement records 
should be increased, and that these alternative movement records could 
be created by a veterinarian or their designee, but APHIS should not 
require an inspection or attestation of health by a veterinarian.
    The existing regulations in Sec.  86.5(a) already provide for 
alternatives to the ICVI for animals moving interstate. Alternate 
documentation requires an agreement between both shipping and receiving 
States to be considered official movement documentation. The current 
regulations do not specify that an alternative movement document 
requires an inspection or attestation of health by a veterinarian.
    Two commenters stated that the USDA and States should target 
enforcement of ADT requirements beyond fixed-facility livestock auction 
markets to avoid incentivizing direct selling outside of markets.
    We do not believe this rulemaking will incentivize direct selling 
outside of markets. Compliance with the regulations in 9 CFR part 86 is 
required for animals subject to these regulations, regardless of 
whether the animal is sold through a livestock market or a private 
sale. Accredited veterinarians responsible for inspection and 
interstate movement of animals are subject to the same requirements and 
face the same sanctions for noncompliance, regardless of whether they 
work for or from a market or private treaty sale. Accredited 
veterinarians must submit copies of the documentation (ICVI or 
alternate movement documents) to the origin and destination State 
official within 7 days of inspecting the animal, and they must complete 
this documentation accurately and completely. Accredited veterinarians 
that are non-compliant are subject to sanctions including monetary 
penalties, loss of accreditation, and, in some cases, criminal 
penalties.
    A commenter asked whether there will be civil or criminal penalties 
for not adhering to the requirements of the final rule.
    The AHPA lists criminal and civil penalties relevant to violating 
the requirements of the regulations in section 8313. Changes to the 
regulations do not impact the Act.
    Some commenters stated that this rulemaking could subject cattle 
producers to liability, should the animal bearing their EID eartag 
contract a disease after the animal is sold or should food safety 
issues arise in meatpacking plants.
    Under this rulemaking, producers are not liable for disease 
infection after an animal leaves their premises. The EID requirement 
thus has no known implications for producer liability.
    One commenter claimed that the reason behind requiring EID for 
eartags is the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.
    The commenter provided no evidence to support this claim. As 
explained in the proposed rule and earlier in this document, the 
purpose of this action is

[[Page 39561]]

to improve our animal disease traceability program's ability to trace 
animals accurately and rapidly in order to aid us in disease response.
    Several commenters requested that APHIS seek equivalency from 
trading partners by requiring imported cattle to have EID.
    The scope of this rulemaking is limited to requirements for 
domestic cattle in interstate commerce. New requirements for imported 
cattle would require a separate rulemaking.
    Some commenters stated that the ADT program needs to be compatible 
with the general traceability principles of the World Organization for 
Animal Health (WOAH).
    We are unsure of what specific principles the commenters are 
referring to. However, we note that, as a WOAH member country, the 
United States contributes to development of, and complies with, the 
guidelines that the member countries develop.
    Finally, we note that we are making non-substantive editorial 
changes to the OAIDS to improve clarity, readability, and accuracy. 
This includes changes such as reordering information, removing 
duplicative information, and removing broken links. It also includes 
editing to a paragraph explaining which criteria manufacturers must 
meet for low-frequency devices. The edits remove a sentence stating 
that substantial sales data or approval in another country may be 
considered in lieu of International Committee on Animal Recording's 
(ICAR) materials/environmental testing. We are making this edit because 
sales data or approval in another country may not be an adequate 
substitute for ICAR testing, and we do not have a standard for what 
``substantial sales data'' means. The revised OAIDS is published 
alongside this final rule.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule has been determined to be significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, 
``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' and, therefore, has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget.
    We have prepared an economic analysis for this final 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 examines the potential economic effects of this 
final rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. The economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full 
analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 6 
in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    We are amending 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 
clarifying certain record retention and record access requirements. 
These changes will 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 cost-benefit analysis to determine how the 
transition to electronic identification (EID) tags will 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 rule will not change the number of cattle tagged, but it 
will increase the estimated average annual cost of purchasing tags by 
approximately $26.1 million dollars per year, or $30.39 per cattle or 
bison operation. As noted in APHIS' cost-benefit analysis, the cost of 
purchasing new tags is the only additional costs APHIS has determined 
will be imposed on producers, regardless of whether they currently own 
electronic reading equipment.
    We began soliciting comments concerning the proposal for 60 days, 
ending March 20, 2023. In response to several requests by commenters, 
we extended the comment period by 30 days, to April 19, 2023. We 
received 2,006 comments from industry groups, producers, veterinarians, 
State departments of agriculture, and individuals. While many of these 
comments were in support of the proposed rule, we did receive concerns 
regarding the economic impacts of this rule. Comments included concerns 
regarding the potential additional costs of having to adhere to the new 
EID technology, beyond the cost of the EID tags, along with concerns 
that this rulemaking will disproportionately impact small businesses. 
We have evaluated these concerns carefully and, while the new EID tags 
will increase the costs of identifying certain cattle and bison as 
outlined in this analysis, we have found the other concerns to be 
unsubstantiated, which we discuss in the cost section of this analysis.
    Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, a type of 
electronic identification, has been available in the livestock industry 
for many years. APHIS has evaluated the cost structure of current 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 eartags are 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 rule will be the 
enhanced ability of the United States to regionalize and 
compartmentalize animal disease outbreaks. Regionalization is the 
concept of separating subpopulations of animals 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. The 
use of EID eartags can significantly reduce the amount of time it takes 
animal health officials to complete a trace investigation, which 
involves knowing where diseased and potentially exposed animals are, 
and where they have been. Animals that may have come

[[Page 39562]]

in contact with an affected animal can number in the thousands or tens 
of thousands. Transitioning from visual to electronic identification 
devices may significantly reduce the time it takes animal health 
officials conducting a trace to scan animals in a herd during a disease 
response. The more efficiently and effectively animal health officials 
can complete a trace, the faster we can regionalize and 
compartmentalize animal disease outbreaks in order to mitigate adverse 
economic impacts. Having an EID system in place will, 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 final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws 
and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Executive Order 13175

    This final 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 Executive Order 13175 is applicable to 
this rulemaking and that therefore consultation is required, as this 
final rule may affect one or more Tribes and the cost associated with 
managing cattle and bison herds. To raise awareness of this rulemaking, 
APHIS hosted an informational webinar to Tribal nations on October 27, 
2021, to notify Tribes of this rulemaking and solicit consultation. On 
May 18, 2022, the APHIS Office of National Tribal Liaison sent letters 
to all 574 Tribal Leaders inviting them to attend an upcoming Tribal 
listening session. The listening session was held on June 23, 2022. 
Sixteen individuals attended, and we did not receive feedback that 
substantively affected the development of this rulemaking. APHIS will 
work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure that additional 
outreach occurs in 2024. If a Tribe requests consultation, APHIS will 
coordinate with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure that 
meaningful consultation occurs.

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 final rule are 
currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
OMB control number 0579-0327. The categories of burden and numbers 
haven't changed as a result of this rule. The last approval from 2021 
(https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2021-0056-0001) is still 
accurate.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the EGovernment 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 final rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, 
APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2533.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act, 5 
U.S.C. 801 et seq.) OIRA has determined that this rule does not meet 
the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104.4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, tribal 
governments, and the private sector. Under section 101 of the UMRA, 
APHIS generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a 
rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires APHIS to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of title II of the UMRA) that may result in expenditures by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.

List 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.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, APHIS amends 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

[[Page 39563]]

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 ``Dairy cattle'', 
``Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI)'', and 
``Official eartag'' to read as follows:


Sec.  78.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Dairy cattle. All cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use, 
that are of a breed(s) or offspring of a breed 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.
* * * * *
    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 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

[[Page 39564]]

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)'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Official eartag''; and
0
d. Adding an OMB citation at the end of the section.
    The revisions and additions 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 or current use, 
that are of a breed(s) or offspring of a breed 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.
* * * * *
    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 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.
* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0327)

0
9. Revise Sec.  86.2 to add an OMB citation at the end of the section 
to read as follows:


Sec.  86.2  General requirements for traceability.

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0327)

0
10. 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 
Tribal, State, Federal, or other database acceptable to each government 
entity. Additional guidance on meeting these recordkeeping requirements 
is found in the OAIDS.
    (b) Records of official identification devices applied by a 
federally

[[Page 39565]]

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.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0327)


0
11. Amend Sec.  86.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1)(i);
0
b. In paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (iv), removing the word ``equine'' and 
adding in its place the word ``equid'' wherever it appears;
0
c. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), removing the words ``to the equine'' and 
adding in their place the words ``into the equid'';
0
d. In paragraph (a)(2)(v), removing the word ``equines'' and adding in 
its 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);
0
i. Adding in paragraph (e)(2)(iv) the words ``or other EID'' between 
the words ``RFID'' and ``eartag''; and
0
j. Adding an OMB citation at the end of the section.
    The additions 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 November 5, 2024, 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 they 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.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0327)


0
12. 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 
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 in 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

[[Page 39566]]

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 
paragraph (c)(7)(ii) 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.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0327)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of April 2024.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2024-09717 Filed 5-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P