[Federal Register: May 1, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 84)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21933-21959]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01my02-30]
[[Page 21933]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 CFR Part 53
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Payment of Indemnity; Update of Provisions;
Proposed Rule
[[Page 21934]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 53
[Docket No. 01-069-1]
RIN 0579-AB34
Foot-and-Mouth Disease Payment of Indemnity; Update of Provisions
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations pertaining to the
control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease and other serious
diseases, including for both cooperative programs and extraordinary
emergencies. Specifically, we are proposing changes in indemnity
provisions primarily related to foot-and-mouth disease. The proposed
changes are prompted, in part, by a review of the regulations in light
of the recent series of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the
United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world. We believe these changes
are necessary to ensure the success of a control and eradication
program in the event of an occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease in the
United States.
DATES: We will consider all comments we receive that are postmarked,
delivered, or e-mailed by July 1, 2002.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery
or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send
four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket
No. 01-069-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state
that your comment refers to Docket No. 01-069-1. If you use e-mail,
address your comment to regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your comment must
be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files.
Please include your name and address in your message and ``Docket No.
01-069-1'' on the subject line.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mark E. Teachman, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Emergency Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA or the Department)
administers regulations at 9 CFR part 53 (referred to below as the
regulations) that provide for the payment of indemnity to owners of
animals that are required to be destroyed because of foot-and-mouth
disease, pleuropneumonia, rinderpest, exotic Newcastle disease, highly
pathogenic avian influenza, infectious salmon anemia or any other
communicable disease of livestock or poultry that in the opinion of the
Secretary of Agriculture constitutes an emergency and threatens the
U.S. livestock or poultry population. The regulations authorize
payments to be based on the fair market value of the animals destroyed,
as well as payments for their destruction and disposal. The regulations
also authorize payments for materials that must be cleaned and
disinfected or destroyed because of being contaminated by or exposed to
disease.
We recently reviewed the regulations to determine their adequacy in
the event of an occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). This review
was prompted, in part, by the recent series of outbreaks of FMD in the
United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world. An occurrence of FMD in
the United States could be devastating given the Nation's extensive
holdings of livestock, poultry, and other animals. Besides the direct
effects on producers of susceptible animals, the consequences of the
disease could ripple throughout the economy, causing indirect costs in
other sectors.
As a result of this review, we are proposing changes to the
regulations relating to the valuation of animals and materials and the
payment of indemnity to claimants that relate primarily to FMD. We do
not cover in this proposed rule these specific cooperative arrangements
that the Administrator may enter into with States and other cooperators
in the control and eradication of disease such as FMD. However, APHIS
continues to work with States and other cooperators in developing
appropriate response plans and strategies that entail the cooperative
efforts of APHIS, other Federal agencies, States, and animal industries
in the event of an occurrence of FMD or other disease covered by the
regulations. We recognize cooperative arrangements with States and
other cooperators are a critical element in the control and eradication
of diseases such as FMD, and therefore invite your comments on this
subject.
We are also proposing other changes to the regulations that involve
updating certain provisions that would be applicable to FMD.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to remove possible sources of
delay in achieving FMD eradication, should an occurrence of that
disease occur in this country. Under existing compensation regulations,
delays may occur because of some producers' perceptions on receiving
full payment, as well as because of current eradication program
requirements. In the first instance, delays can derive from livestock
owners' uncertainty of being fully compensated for the fair market
value of destroyed animals, products, and materials, including
livestock vaccinated as part of an FMD eradication program (official
vaccinates). Owners of affected herds may also be uncertain that they
will receive full compensation for cleaning and disinfection costs. In
the second instance, delays may be caused by having to rely on
appraisal for the valuation of livestock when an insufficient number of
appraisers or other constraints would prevent timely destruction of
infected and exposed animals. This proposed rule sets forth regulatory
changes to address these possible sources of delay.
Proposed Changes to 9 CFR Part 53
Definitions
We are proposing to add to current Sec. 53.1 definitions for the
terms animals affected by disease, APHIS representative, breeding
animal, commercial breeding animal, disease outbreak, donor animal,
endangered or threatened species, exotic animal, Federal veterinarian,
Livestock Marketing Information Center, market animal, National
Veterinary Services Laboratories, official vaccinate, rare animal,
registered animal, seedstock herd or flock, State representative, and
State veterinarian.
[[Page 21935]]
The term animals affected by disease would refer to animals
determined to be infected with, infested with, or exposed to, a disease
covered by part 53. The term would also cover official vaccinates. The
regulations currently use the term ``affected by or exposed to
disease'' in discussing the valuation and destruction of animals
eligible for indemnification. In other animal health regulations
promulgated by the Agency, the terms ``affected with'' or ``affected
by'' apply to animals infected with a disease or exposed to a disease
agent. Therefore, to avoid confusion, we propose to use the term
``animals affected by disease'' to cover both animals infected with a
disease or exposed to a disease agent. The term ``animals affected by
disease'' would also cover ``infested with'' because part 53 could
apply to animals affected by screwworm, ticks, or organisms other than
bacteria, viruses, or other agents typically associated with infection.
The regulations define APHIS employee as any individual employed by
APHIS who is authorized by the Administrator to do any work or perform
any duty in connection with the control and eradication of disease. The
regulations define inspector in charge as an APHIS employee who is
designated by the Administrator to take charge of work in connection
with the control and eradication of diseases. We are proposing to
remove references to the terms APHIS employee and inspector in charge
throughout the regulations and replace them with the term APHIS
representative. An APHIS representative would be defined as any
individual employed by or acting as an agent on behalf of APHIS who is
authorized by the Administrator to perform the services required by
part 53. We would make this change since, depending on the location and
magnitude of the disease occurrence, it may not always be possible to
use APHIS employees for all the services authorized under the
regulations. Therefore, to reflect the possibility that we may have to
contract for some of the services covered by the regulations, we are
proposing to use the term ``APHIS representative'' in place of ``APHIS
employee'' and ``inspector in charge'' throughout the regulations.
We would define a breeding animal as any animal that is raised for
the purpose of producing market animals or other breeding animals and
that, in the case of a female, has donated embryos or been bred, and in
the case of a male, is sexually intact and has reached the age of
sexual maturity.
We would define the term commercial breeding animal to cover any
breeding animal other than a registered animal, an animal that is part
of a seedstock herd or flock, or a donor animal.
The term disease outbreak would refer to the initial occurrence of
the disease, as determined and reported by the United States Department
of Agriculture.
A donor animal would be defined as any animal, other than a
registered animal or an animal that is part of a seedstock herd or
flock, that has donated at least two embryos, in the case of females,
or at least 100 units of semen, in the case of males, for sale to
another producer or transfer to a separate herd or flock.
The term endangered or threatened species would refer to those
species defined as endangered species or threatened species in the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations
promulgated thereunder and as they may be subsequently amended.
We would define an exotic animal as any animal that is native to a
foreign country or of foreign origin or character or is not native to
the United States.
We would define a Federal veterinarian as a veterinarian employed
and authorized by the Federal Government to perform the services
required by part 53. A Federal veterinarian could be an APHIS
veterinarian or a veterinarian employed by another agency of the
Federal Government.
The Livestock Marketing Information Center would refer to the
organization funded cooperatively by the United States Department of
Agriculture, State land grant universities, and livestock industry
associations that develops, disseminates and maintains economic and
market data relating to the livestock industry.
The term market animal would apply to any animal being raised for
the primary purpose of slaughter for meat, or, in the case of dairy
animals, the production of milk, or, in the case of certain sheep, the
production of wool.
We would define National Veterinary Services Laboratories as the
organizational unit within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service delegated responsibility for providing services for the
diagnosis of domestic and foreign animal diseases, diagnostic support
for disease control and eradication programs, import and export testing
of animals, training, and laboratory certification for selected
diseases.
We are proposing to define an official vaccinate as any animal that
has been: Vaccinated with an official vaccine for FMD under the
supervision of a State or Federal veterinarian; identified by an eartag
specifically approved by APHIS for identification of animals officially
vaccinated for FMD; and reported to the Administrator as an official
vaccinate for FMD promptly after vaccination by the State or Federal
veterinarian supervising the vaccination. Because of our current focus
on FMD, the term official vaccinate would only include those animals
that have been officially vaccinated for FMD. In the future, we may
propose to amend the regulations to include animals vaccinated for
other diseases.
The term rare animal would mean an animal that is extremely
uncommon in the United States and that is neither an exotic animal nor
a member of an endangered or threatened species.
We would define a registered animal as an animal of a particular
breed for which individual records of ancestry are maintained, and for
which individual registration certificates are issued and recorded by a
recognized breed association whose purpose is the improvement of the
breed.
The term seedstock herd or flock would mean, in the case of cattle
and sheep, a herd or flock in which, during the previous 5 years, at
least 25 percent of the animals born to the herd or flock have, for
breeding purposes, been sold to another producer or transferred to a
separate herd or flock, or, in the case of swine, a herd in which at
least 50 percent of the gilts produced have, for breeding purposes,
been sold to another producer or transferred to a separate herd. This
definition represents our best estimates based on our observations of
the livestock industry. However, we recognize that a seedstock herd or
flock is a concept that is evolving as a result of changes in
technology and marketing, most notably in the swine industry. We
therefore solicit your comments and suggestions on this definition,
including alternative approaches for defining this term.
The term State representative would refer to an individual employed
by a State or a political subdivision to perform the specified
functions agreed to by the Department and the State, while State
veterinarian would refer specifically to a veterinarian employed and
authorized by a State or its political subdivision to perform the
services required by part 53.
We would also amend definitions that already appear in current
Sec. 53.1 for the terms Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
disease, exotic Newcastle disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza,
materials, and Secretary.
[[Page 21936]]
We would make a minor change to the definition of Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service so that its recognized abbreviation,
``APHIS,'' would appear as part of the term defined instead of in the
text of the definition.
Current Sec. 53.1 defines disease as FMD, rinderpest, contagious
pleuropneumonia, exotic Newcastle disease, highly pathogenic avian
influenza, and infectious salmon anemia, or any other communicable
disease that in the opinion of the Secretary constitutes an emergency
and threatens the livestock or poultry of the United States. We are
proposing to amend the definition of this term to more closely follow
the various statutory language for the control and eradication of
diseases. We propose to define the term disease as any communicable
disease of livestock or poultry for which indemnity is not provided
elsewhere in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, and contagious or
infectious diseases of animals, such as FMD, rinderpest, contagious
pleuropneumonia, exotic Newcastle disease, highly pathogenic avian
influenza, and infectious salmon anemia, that, in the opinion of the
Secretary, constitute an emergency or an extraordinary emergency and
threaten the livestock or poultry of the United States. The revised
definition would also clarify that diseases covered under part 53 would
not include those diseases covered by indemnification regulations
elsewhere in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, such as tuberculosis,
brucellosis, pseudorabies, and scrapie.
We would make a minor technical correction to the definition of
exotic Newcastle disease as it currently appears in Sec. 53.1 by not
capitalizing the word ``disease.''
We are also proposing to make a technical correction, for purposes
of clarification, to the definition of highly pathogenic avian
influenza. We would add the words ``in the test described in paragraph
(1) of this definition'' to immediately follow the words ``one to five
chickens'' in the third paragraph of the definition.
The regulations currently define the term materials to include
parts of barns or other structures, straw, hay, and other feed for
animals, farm products or equipment, clothing, and articles stored in
or adjacent to barns or other structures. The existing definition
focuses primarily on articles or objects associated with farms.
However, it is possible that locations other than farms, such as
slaughtering facilities and other livestock concentration points, could
be contaminated by or exposed to a disease agent. Therefore, we would
broaden the definition of materials to also include ``any other
article.'' We would change ``farm products'' to ``agricultural products
or byproducts'' in order to include those products that may be produced
somewhere other than on a farm. We would add references to ``bedding''
and ``conveyances.'' We would also remove the words ``parts of'' that
precede the words ``barns or other structures'' to make the provision
easier to understand without changing its substantive meaning. Based on
these proposed changes, we would define the term materials as barns or
other structures; straw, hay, and other feed and bedding for animals;
agricultural products and byproducts; conveyances; equipment; clothing;
and any other article.
The term Secretary is defined in current Sec. 53.1 as the Secretary
of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the
Department to whom authority has been or may be delegated to act in the
Secretary's stead. We would simplify this term to mean the Secretary of
Agriculture of the United States or any officer or employee of the
Department authorized to act for the Secretary.
We are also proposing to remove from current Sec. 53.1 the
definitions of APHIS employee, inspector in charge, mortgage, and pet
bird. As discussed previously, we are proposing to use APHIS
representative in place of APHIS employee and inspector in charge
throughout the regulations, and, therefore, no longer require
definitions of these terms. We do not believe a definition of mortgage
is necessary because our use of the term in the regulations is in
keeping with the dictionary meaning. The term pet bird is no longer
used in the regulations. Disease Control and Eradication, Payments
Authorized, Determination of Disease
Current Sec. 53.2 provides that the Administrator is authorized to
agree to cooperate with a State in the control and eradication of those
diseases covered by the regulations. Current Sec. 53.2 further provides
that, upon agreement with the State, the Administrator is authorized to
pay 50 percent of the expenses of the purchase, destruction, and
disposition of animals and materials required to be destroyed because
of being contaminated by or exposed to such disease, except that for
infectious salmon anemia the Administrator is authorized to pay 60
percent of those costs, and for exotic Newcastle disease or highly
pathogenic avian influenza, the Administrator is authorized to pay up
to 100 percent of those costs. Current Sec. 53.2 also states that, if
animals are exposed to such disease prior to or during interstate
movement and are not eligible to receive indemnity from any State, the
Department may pay up to 100 percent of the costs of the purchase,
destruction, and disposition of animals or materials required to be
destroyed. Current Sec. 53.2 further provides that any cooperative
program for the purchase, destruction, and disposition of birds is
limited to those birds that are ``identified in documentation pursuant
to Cooperative Agreements'' as constituting a threat to the U.S.
poultry industry. In addition, current Sec. 53.2 provides that the
Secretary of Agriculture may authorize other arrangements for the
payment of expenses covered in this section upon finding that an
extraordinary emergency exists.
We are proposing to make a number of changes to current Sec. 53.2.
Some of these are minor changes to make the regulations easier to
understand. We are also proposing changes to Sec. 53.2 that are more
substantive in nature.
We would change the section heading ``Determination of existence of
disease; agreements with States'' to ``Disease control and eradication;
payments authorized; determination of disease.''
We are proposing this change so that the section heading better
reflects the order of topics covered under Sec. 53.2 and its scope of
coverage. We would also delete some of the language from current
paragraph (a) and reorganize a revised version of the remainder of
current Sec. 53.2(a) and (b) into a new paragraph (a).
We would clarify that the Department may cooperate not only with
States, but also with political subdivisions of States, farmers'
associations and similar organizations, and individuals in the control
and eradication of disease. We would refer to these other potential
cooperators to be consistent with the statutory language on this
subject. In the absence of an extraordinary emergency, we would
continue to provide that the Administrator would pay costs covered
under Sec. 53.2 upon agreement of the States or others to cooperate in
the control and eradication of the disease. We would remove the
specific language requiring that such agreement is subject to the State
agreeing to enforce quarantine restrictions and directives properly
issued in the control and eradication of disease, since there may be a
number of activities relating to the control and eradication of disease
that States and other cooperators would agree to perform in fulfilling
their cooperative obligations. We would add that the payment of costs
provided in proposed Sec. 53.2 by the Administrator
[[Page 21937]]
would be subject to the availability of funding. Throughout proposed
Sec. 53.2, we would also make a stylistic change by substituting the
word ``costs'' in place of ``expenses.''
In describing those costs eligible for indemnification under a
cooperative program, current Sec. 53.2(b) refers to ``the expenses of
purchase, destruction and disposition of animals and materials required
to be destroyed because of being contaminated by or exposed to such
disease.''
We would change this characterization by referring to animals
``affected by disease.'' We would continue to use the term
``contaminated by or exposed to'' when referring to materials. However,
we would make a technical change for purposes of clarification by
referring to materials as contaminated by or exposed to ``a disease
agent.''
The subject of sharing cleaning and disinfection costs is currently
covered by Sec. 53.7 of the regulations. We are proposing that this
subject be covered in proposed Sec. 53.2 so that Sec. 53.2 would
reference all costs for which payments are authorized.
We are proposing that, in the case of a cooperative program for
FMD, the Administrator will pay 100 percent of the costs for:
Purchase, destruction, and disposition of animals affected
by FMD, including official vaccinates; and
Cleaning and disinfection of materials that are
contaminated by or exposed to FMD, and the purchase, destruction, and
disposition of such materials when the cost of cleaning and
disinfection would exceed the value of the materials or cleaning and
disinfection would be impracticable.
In the case of costs for cleaning and disinfection of materials
because of FMD, we would require that such costs be ``fair and
reasonable'' based on the plain meaning of that phrase. As discussed
below, these types of costs would be verified based on receipts or
other similar documentation submitted by the claimant. The concept of
``fair and reasonable'' would allow for compensation that takes into
account that costs incurred for these items or services may vary from
region to region.
We are proposing these indemnity changes in the case of FMD to
provide the Administrator with sufficient resources and flexibility to
effectively control and eradicate any occurrence of FMD in this
country. An FMD occurrence in the United States could be devastating,
given the Nation's extensive livestock holdings. We believe that
effective disease control strategies at the first sign of an FMD
occurrence are imperative if losses are to be minimized. Authorizing
the Administrator to pay 100 percent of the costs for the purchase,
destruction, and disposition of animals affected by FMD, 100 percent of
the costs for cleaning and disinfection of materials contaminated by or
exposed to FMD, and 100 percent of the costs for the purchase,
destruction, and disposition of such materials when the cost of
cleaning and disinfection would exceed the value of the materials or
cleaning and disinfection would be impracticable, would reassure
livestock industries of the Department's full commitment to
eradication, thereby helping to bolster the cooperation of affected
parties.
We would also expressly provide compensation for official
vaccinates destroyed because of FMD. Vaccination of animals for FMD may
be part of our cooperative control and eradication strategy should FMD
be introduced into the United States. Specifically, susceptible animals
at a certain distance from an occurrence may be vaccinated to help
prevent the spread of the disease. Subject to certain exceptions that
may include exotic or rare animals or endangered or threatened species,
as discussed below in our proposed changes to Sec. 53.4, vaccinated
animals would be destroyed as part of an FMD eradication program.
Because nonvaccinated animals affected with FMD would be destroyed
first, it may be necessary for vaccinated animals to be held on a
premises for an indeterminate length of time prior to destruction.
During this period, producers would be responsible for the care and
feeding of their vaccinated animals. The regulations currently do not
provide compensation for care and feeding of animals. However, we are
seriously considering whether the regulations should authorize
compensation to cover all or part of the costs of care and feeding of
official vaccinates awaiting destruction.
Compensating producers for the care and feeding of official
vaccinates would help remove any reluctance by producers to have their
herds vaccinated as part of a cooperative program to control and
eradicate FMD. Without providing such financial assistance, there could
be a disincentive on the part of producers to cooperate and participate
in the program since the costs of care and feeding would, in effect,
offset the producers' compensation for these animals. Should paying for
this activity be a responsibility of the producer or of the Federal
Government through the payment of compensation? We would like your
comments on this subject.
We would consider compensable costs relating to care and feeding to
include those operating costs that are fair and reasonable and are
directly attributable to maintaining the animals, such as costs for
veterinary services and medicines, bedding and litter, fuel and
electricity, repairs, allocated hired labor, and feed. Claims for such
costs could be based on receipts or other documentation submitted to
the Administrator that would verify a claimant's costs for care and
feeding of official vaccinates. Certain livestock and feed assistance
programs administered by USDA's Farm Services Agency (FSA) provide that
compensation for feed may also be calculated based upon rates that are
tied to pre-established energy or nutrient maintenance requirements
designed to meet the daily maintenance needs of different types and
weight classes of livestock.
We solicit your comments that specifically address the
appropriateness of, and need for, providing compensation to producers
for costs relating to the care and feeding of official vaccinates in
the event of FMD. We further invite your comments on the types of costs
that should be eligible for compensation, and the most suitable means
for determining such costs (i.e., through receipts or other
documentation, pre-established animal energy or nutrient maintenance
requirements, or some other means). We also solicit your comments on
the amount of expenditures that might be incurred in the care and
feeding of official vaccinates over a particular time duration, such as
one or two months.
We would also make a technical change to current Sec. 53.2 with
regard to cooperative programs for the purchase, destruction, and
disposition of birds. We would provide that the birds covered under
such a program would be ``determined by the Administrator'' as
constituting a threat to the U.S. poultry industry instead of
``identified in documentation pursuant to Cooperative Agreements'' as
constituting such a threat.
We are also proposing to remove from current Sec. 53.2 the
reference to the Secretary's authority to make other arrangements for
the payment of expenses upon finding that an extraordinary emergency
exists. The specific reference is not necessary because the proposed
indemnity provisions for the destruction of animals and materials would
apply both to cooperative compensation programs as well as in the case
of an extraordinary emergency. The basis for the payments of
compensation for animals or materials destroyed under a cooperative
[[Page 21938]]
program or in the case of an extraordinary emergency would be the fair
market value. We would clarify in proposed Sec. 53.2(a)(2) that when
the Secretary determines that an extraordinary emergency exists, the
Administrator would pay, subject to the availability of funding, 100
percent of the costs (i.e., the fair market value) for the purchase,
destruction, and disposition of animals and materials. Payment of 100
percent of the costs for animals and materials in the case of an
extraordinary emergency would apply to all diseases covered by the
regulations. However, any payment by the Administrator could not exceed
the difference between the compensation received from a State or other
source and the fair market value of the animals or materials.
As discussed previously, current Sec. 53.2(a) and (b), revised as
described above, would become new Sec. 53.2(a). We would then add a new
paragraph (b) to Sec. 53.2. Proposed Sec. 53.2(b) would provide the
basis for determining that animals are affected by disease or that
materials are contaminated by or exposed to a disease agent. Under
proposed Sec. 53.2(b)(1), the determination that animals are affected
by disease would be made by either a Federal veterinarian or a State
veterinarian who has completed the APHIS course on foreign animal
disease diagnosis. This particular course is currently offered at
APHIS' Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, located at Plum
Island, NY.
The determination that animals are affected by disease would be
based on factors such as clinical evidence of the disease (signs,
necropsy lesions, and history of the occurrence of the disease),
diagnostic tests for the disease based on protocols approved by the
National Veterinary Services Laboratories, or epidemiological evidence.
By epidemiological evidence, we mean evaluation of the clinical
evidence and the degree of risk posed by the potential spread of the
disease based on the disease's virulence, its known means of
transmission, and the particular species involved. A copy of the
protocols for diagnostic tests of diseases covered by part 53 would be
available by writing Emergency Programs, Veterinary Services, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 41,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
Under proposed Sec. 53.2(b)(2), the APHIS representative or State
representative, with the guidance of a Federal veterinarian or a State
veterinarian, would be authorized to determine whether materials are
contaminated by or exposed to a disease agent.
Payments for Animals and Materials, Other Compensation, Request for
Review
Current Sec. 53.3 covers the appraisal of animals or materials
eligible for indemnification. Paragraph (a) of current Sec. 53.3
provides that animals affected by or exposed to disease, as well as
materials required to be destroyed because of being contaminated by or
exposed to disease, shall be appraised jointly by an APHIS employee and
a State representative, or, if the State authorities approve, by an
APHIS employee alone.
Paragraph (b) of current Sec. 53.3 states that the appraisal of
animals shall be based on the animal's fair market value according to
its meat, egg production, dairy, or breeding value. Paragraph (b) also
provides that animals may be appraised in groups, provided the animals
are of the same species and type. Paragraph (b) states that when
appraisal is ``by the head,'' each animal in the group will be valued
at that same value per head and when appraisal is ``by the pound,''
each animal in the group will be valued at that same per-pound value.
Paragraph (c) of current Sec. 53.3 provides that appraisals of
animals shall be reported on forms furnished by APHIS that show the
number of animals of each species and the value per head or the weight
and value per pound. Paragraph (d) of current Sec. 53.3 provides that
appraisals of materials shall be reported on forms furnished by APHIS
that show, when practicable, the number, size or quantity, unit price,
and total value of each kind of material appraised.
We are proposing to make a number of changes to current Sec. 53.3
both in terms of organization and content. We would change the section
heading of current Sec. 53.3 from ``Appraisal of animals or materials''
to ``Payments for animals and materials; other compensation; request
for review.'' We would make this change to be consistent with our
proposal, as discussed below, of providing means other than appraisal
for determining the value of animals and materials in the case of FMD.
Under proposed Sec. 53.3, paragraph (a) would cover the valuation
of animals, paragraph (b) would cover the valuation of materials,
paragraph (c) would cover other compensation allowed by the regulations
(i.e., costs for cleaning and disinfection), and paragraph (d) would
cover the process for a claimant to request a review of the valuation
of animals or materials, or the amount of payment relating to costs of
cleaning and disinfection.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a) would include much of the information that
already appears in the regulations for the valuation of animals, but
with certain important changes. Instead of referring to animals
``affected by or exposed to disease,'' we would refer to animals
``affected by disease'' for the reasons discussed previously. Proposed
Sec. 53.3(a) would now also apply to the valuation of official
vaccinates in the case of FMD. Proposed Sec. 53.3(a) would provide that
the value of animals affected by disease and subject to destruction
would be the fair market value based on appraisal of the animals,
subject to an exception related to FMD as explained below. We would
remove the reference that the fair market value be based on the ``meat,
egg production, dairy or breeding value of such animals'' since fair
market value may also reflect other factors as well.
We are proposing that, in the case of FMD, if the Administrator
determines that appraisal is impracticable or would otherwise
compromise efforts to effectively control and eradicate the disease,
the Administrator may determine the fair market value of animals by a
fixed-rate method in lieu of appraisal. We would make this change
because the virulence and potential magnitude of FMD may make appraisal
impracticable, and actually compromise our ability to control and
eradicate the disease due to the time, personnel, and other resources
that would be required to conduct appraisals. In addition, the weighing
of animals subject to destruction would not likely be an option in the
case of FMD because of time limitations and movement restrictions. The
use of a fixed-rate method instead of appraisal would entail less
contact with affected animals and fewer visits to affected premises by
APHIS representatives and State representatives, thereby lowering the
risk in the transmission of FMD. Having in place a mechanism for
establishing fixed rates without the need for additional rulemaking at
the time of an FMD occurrence would also facilitate quicker
compensation to affected claimants, thus bolstering the cooperation of
affected parties and contributing to the overall effectiveness of the
eradication program.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(1) would contain the requirements for
determining the fair market value of animals based on the appraisal
method. We would continue to require that the appraisal be conducted
jointly by an APHIS representative and a State representative, or, if
the State authorities approve, by an APHIS
[[Page 21939]]
representative alone. We would also continue to provide that animals
may be appraised in groups, provided that they are of the same species
and type and provided that, where appraisal is by the head, each animal
in the group would be the same value per head, or where appraisal is by
the pound, each animal in the group would be the same value per pound.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2) would set forth the basic criteria for
determining the fair market value of animals under a fixed-rate method,
if authorized by the Administrator in the case of FMD. Rates would be
established on a per-head basis for beef and dairy cattle, swine, and
sheep. This group of animals would likely represent the vast majority
of animals that would be affected by FMD and subject to depopulation.
Rates may be established for other animals for which the Administrator
finds sufficient information publicly available to make a calculation
of the animal's fair market value in accordance with the procedures
provided in proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2). Otherwise, the value of other
animals affected by disease would be determined by appraisal as
provided in proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(1). We invite your comments and
suggestions on the fixed-rate method, including your comments and
suggestions for setting fixed rates for animals susceptible to FMD
other than beef and dairy cattle, swine, and sheep. We have not
proposed fixed rates for goats at this time because we have not
developed rate criteria that we believe suitably encompasses the
different market and breeding classifications for goats. Similarly, we
have not included the means for establishing fixed rates for
nontraditional animals susceptible to FMD such as llamas, farmed
cervids (deer and elk), and buffalo. We invite your comments and
suggestions for establishing fixed rates for these animals.
In establishing fixed rates, we would set a uniform rate for each
of the proposed animal classifications. We would do this, in part,
because we would use price data that generally reflect national rather
than regional conditions. We are also proposing a system of national
uniform rates to facilitate implementation of an FMD eradication
program. In proposing a system of national uniform rates, we realize
there is a potential of overlooking regional market disparities. We
invite your comments on the use of a national uniform fixed rate for
each of the animal classifications, as well as your suggestions on
alternative approaches to using national uniform fixed rates.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(i) sets forth how we would classify
animals for purposes of setting rates. Animals would first be
classified as either market animals or breeding animals. Market animals
would include those animals raised for the primary purpose of slaughter
for meat or, in the case of dairy animals, the production of milk, or,
in the case of certain sheep, the production of wool. Breeding animals
would include those animals that are raised for the primary purpose of
producing market animals or other breeding animals and that, in the
case of females, have donated embryos or been bred, and in the case of
males, are sexually intact and have reached the age of sexual maturity.
For example, a registered dairy bull that is sexually immature would
not be considered a breeding animal for purposes of compensation.
We would establish additional classifications for both market
animals and breeding animals. For each classification, we would
establish a single per-head rate to be paid to all animals within that
classification. Market animals would be further classified according to
their production phase, including whether or not the animals are weaned
and whether or not the animals are on finishing rations (i.e., at a
feedlot or finishing barn). We are proposing to establish rates for
market animals for each of the following classifications:
Cattle.
Beef cattle: Preweaned calves; non-feedlot, but weaned (stocker)
animals; and feedlot animals.
Dairy cattle: Commercial dairy cows (female dairy cows that are or
have been in milk), non-bred heifer replacements and sexually immature
bulls, and bred heifer replacements.
Swine: Grower-finisher pigs, nursery pigs, and preweaned
piglets.
Sheep: Preweaned lambs, weaned feeder lambs, slaughter
lambs, and wethers raised for wool production.
Breeding animals would be further classified, based on whether they
are commercial breeding animals, or are registered animals, part of a
seedstock herd or flock, or donor animals. We would set up these
classifications to recognize the generally higher value of registered
or seedstock animals, as well as animals that have donated embryos or
semen, in comparison to commercial breeding animals. We are proposing
to establish rates for breeding animals for each of the following
classifications:
Cattle.
Beef cattle: Beef cows (commercial herds); bred replacement heifers
(commercial herds); beef bulls (commercial herds); and registered
animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals.
Dairy cattle: Dairy bulls; and registered animals, animals in a
seedstock herd, and donor animals.
Swine: Sows and boars (commercial herds) and registered
animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals.
Sheep: Ewes and rams (commercial flocks) and registered
animals, animals in a seedstock flock, and donor animals.
We have attempted to select commonly-used animal classifications
with logical breakpoints that would be easily understandable to the
livestock industry as well as to APHIS and State representatives. We
are restricted in providing more extensive classifications based on an
animal's weight since it is unlikely that we would be able to
individually weigh animals in the event of an FMD occurrence. We
believe, however, that use of these proposed classifications will allow
claimants to receive fair market value for animals destroyed. We invite
your comments regarding the above classifications for setting fixed
rates, including your suggestions for alternative approaches to
classifying animals for purposes of establishing rates.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii) would provide the procedures for
establishing fixed rates for different classifications of market
animals. As discussed previously, we are proposing to define a market
animal as any animal being raised for the primary purpose of slaughter
for meat, or, in the case of dairy animals, the production of milk, or,
in the case of certain sheep, the production of wool.
In proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(A), we provide that the rates for
different classifications of beef cattle (preweaned calves; non-
feedlot, but weaned (stocker) animals; and feedlot animals) would be
based on prices from applicable futures contracts traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange. The rates for preweaned calves and stocker animals
would be based on the feeder cattle futures contract, while the rate
for feedlot animals would be based on the live cattle futures contract.
The rates for each of these market animal classifications would be
calculated by multiplying the applicable futures price by the estimated
weight set by APHIS. It is necessary to multiply the futures price by
an assigned compensation weight because futures prices are reported as
a price per hundredweight (cwt) instead of a price per head. A
hundredweight is a unit of weight equal to 100 pounds. We would use an
estimated weight for each animal classification instead of the animal's
actual weight since we do not expect it
[[Page 21940]]
to be practicable to individually weigh animals in the event of an FMD
occurrence.
The advantage of basing rates on futures contract prices, when
available, is that traditional livestock pricing is disappearing. Most
buyers and sellers now participate in the futures markets. Therefore,
futures prices would best represent national market conditions, as well
as provide the most current price information. Further, there is a
greater lag factor in obtaining similar price data from other publicly-
available sources. When using futures contracts, we would select
contracts that most closely parallel the production phase of the animal
classification for which we are establishing rates. We invite your
comments as to the appropriateness of using futures prices for
determining fixed rates, and specifically futures contracts traded on
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(A)(1) provides that, in using futures
prices as a basis for establishing rates for beef cattle, we would take
the simple average of the most recently available daily futures prices
over a 3-month period immediately prior to the date of the disease
outbreak using the futures contract month that corresponds to the month
of the disease outbreak, or the next succeeding contract month if there
is not an applicable futures contract for the month that corresponds to
the month of the disease outbreak. In taking futures prices over a 3-
month period, we would go back from the time of the disease outbreak.
So if an outbreak was reported by USDA on August 15, we would go back
3-months in time from that date. In the case of preweaned calves,
however, the applicable futures price would be the simple average of
the most recently available daily future prices for that animal over a
3-month period using the futures contract month that corresponds to the
month the claimant has historically weaned their calves, or the next
succeeding contract month if there is not an applicable futures
contract for the month that corresponds to the month of planned
weaning. We would make this one exception in the case of preweaned
calves since the estimated weight would be based on the average weaning
weight for these animals.
Because markets and pricing mechanisms could be seriously disrupted
as a result of FMD, establishing fixed rates based on market activity
prior to the disease outbreak would likely be most appropriate. In our
proposed standards for setting rates, we generally establish
compensation rates based on price averages over a 3-month time period
going back from the time of the disease outbreak. By using a 3-month
time period, we could take into account any possible anomalies,
distortions, or other unique events that may have occurred in the
marketplace in the weeks prior to the outbreak of FMD. We invite your
comments on establishing rates based on a 3-month average of prices.
Under proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(A)(2), the estimated weight set
for different classifications of beef cattle would be the average
weight of animals in that production phase based on the most recently
available information from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) and National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS). We
would also use NASS and NAHMS information in determining the estimated
weights for other animal classifications, as discussed below. Publicly-
available data compiled by NASS and NAHMS on a national basis would
provide a sufficient basis for determining representative estimated
weights for different animal classifications. We invite your comments
on using NASS and NAHMS data for this purpose, as well as your
suggestions on the use of other information sources in establishing the
estimated weights for different animal classifications.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(A)(3) provides that, if the estimated
weight for a particular classification of animal is outside the
specified weight range of the animals covered by the selected futures
contract, then an upward or downward adjustment in the average futures
price would be made to reflect this weight difference and to account
for the fact that the price per cwt varies with the total weight of the
animal. The adjustment would be calculated by multiplying the price-
weight adjustment factor, as determined by the Livestock Marketing
Information Center, by the difference between the average weight of the
animal covered by the futures contract and the estimated weight set by
APHIS.
The formula for calculating the price-weight adjustment, sometimes
referred to as a slide adjustment, is a common industry practice.
Price-weight adjustment factors or ``slide factors'' are not published,
but can be readily determined from a variety of livestock industry
sources. We are proposing to use price-weight adjustment factors
determined by the Livestock Marketing Information Center. The Livestock
Marketing Information Center (LMIC) develops and produces materials for
the livestock industry, including electronic market updates,
newsletters, and other economic information. The LMIC also maintains a
comprehensive database on price, production, consumption, trade, and
other livestock industry data. The LMIC is funded by State land grant
universities, USDA, and livestock industry associations whose missions
include supporting and conducting education and research. We invite
your comments on the appropriateness of using price-weight adjustment
factors, as well as using the LMIC as our source for obtaining this
information. The application of price-weight adjustments in connection
with the establishment of fixed rates is illustrated further in the
example provided under the heading ``Appendix--Establishing Fixed
Rates.''
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(B) would set forth the criteria for
establishing rates for dairy cattle under the market animal
classification. This would include commercial dairy cows, non-bred
heifer replacements and sexually immature bulls, and bred heifer
replacements. Bred heifer replacements would be classified as market
animals on the assumption that they will become milk cows. However, if
the bred heifer replacements are registered animals, or are part of a
seedstock herd, or have donated at least two embryos that have been
sold to another producer or transferred to a separate herd, their rate
will be determined based on their classification as breeding animals.
There are no suitable futures contract prices for valuing dairy
cattle. Therefore, we would look to other sources for price
information. NASS reports quarterly prices received by producers for
cows sold for milking purposes. We are proposing to use this price
series as the basis for determining the value of dairy cattle. Rates
for commercial dairy cows would be based on the most recent quarterly
price per head reported by NASS. The rate for non-bred heifer
replacements and sexually immature bulls would be 70 percent of the
rate determined for commercial dairy cows. The lower rate for non-bred
heifer replacements and sexually immature bulls would reflect the fact
that these are younger animals with lower paid-in costs. The rate for
bred heifer replacements would be 120 percent of the rate determined
for commercial dairy cows. The higher rate for bred heifer replacements
would reflect the value of their milk and breeding potential. We invite
your comments for establishing rates for dairy cattle, including the
proposed percentages that would be used in determining the rates for
non-bred heifer replacements and sexually immature bulls, as well as
for bred heifer replacements.
[[Page 21941]]
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(C) would set forth the standards for
establishing rates for the different market animal classifications
covering swine. These would include grower-finisher pigs, nursery pigs,
and preweaned piglets. Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(C)(1) would base
the rate for grower-finisher pigs on the lean hogs futures contract
that is traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The rate would be
calculated by multiplying the applicable futures price by the estimated
weight set by APHIS for grower-finisher pigs. The applicable futures
price for grower-finisher pigs would be the simple average of the most
recently available daily futures prices over a 3-month period
immediately prior to the date of the disease outbreak using the futures
contract month that corresponds to the month of the disease outbreak,
or the next succeeding contract month if there is not an applicable
futures contract for the month that corresponds to the month of the
disease outbreak, and multiplying that simple average by 74 percent. We
would multiply the average futures price by 74 percent because the lean
hogs futures contract price is based on the slaughter (carcass) price
and not on live animals. A hog carcass weighs approximately 74 percent
of a live hog. The weight difference is due to dressing. The estimated
weight set by APHIS would be the average weight of grower-finisher pigs
based on the most recently available information from NASS and NAHMS.
In the case of nursery pigs, we do not believe that existing
futures contract prices for hogs would provide a suitable means for
valuing pigs in this early phase of production. Under proposed
Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(C)(2), we would instead use the national feeder pig
(40 lb) price that is reported weekly by USDA's Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS). We believe that this AMS price series would provide a
better measure of the fair market value for young pigs in this
particular production phase. In establishing the rate for nursery pigs,
we would take the simple average of the most recently available
national feeder pig prices reported by AMS over a 3-month period
immediately prior to the date of the disease outbreak. The AMS price is
reported on a per-head basis, so it would not be necessary to estimate
the weight for this classification of swine.
Similar to nursery pigs, we do not believe that the existing
futures contracts would be a good means of a fair market value rate for
preweaned piglets. Under proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(C)(3), we would
use the national early weaned pig (10 lb) price reported by AMS on a
weekly basis. In establishing the rate for preweaned piglets, we would
take the simple average of the most recently available prices reported
by AMS over a 3-month period immediately prior to the date of the
disease outbreak.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(D) would set forth the standards for
setting rates for the different market animal classifications for
sheep. These would include preweaned lambs, weaned feeder lambs,
slaughter lambs, and wethers raised for wool production. There are no
suitable futures contracts to use to set rates for these different
classifications of sheep. So we would instead use the national lamb
carcass price that is reported by AMS on a weekly basis to establish
them. Rates would be determined by multiplying the average AMS price by
the estimated weight set by APHIS for that classification of animal.
The average AMS price would be the simple average of the most recently
available national lamb carcass prices reported by AMS over a 3-month
period immediately prior to the date of the disease outbreak,
multiplied by the AMS reported dressing percentage. We would multiply
the average AMS price by the dressing percentage because this
particular AMS price is a carcass price and not based on the live
animal. If AMS does not report a dressing percentage, then 49.5 percent
would be used. The dressing percentage, when reported, typically
averages between 49 and 50 percent.
The estimated weight set by APHIS for preweaned lambs, weaned
feeder lambs, and slaughter lambs would be the average weight of
animals in that production phase based on the most recently available
information from NASS and NAHMS. The estimated weight set by APHIS for
wethers raised for wool production would be the same as that set by
APHIS for slaughter lambs. In addition, for preweaned lambs and weaned
feeder lambs, an upward or downward percentage adjustment in the
average AMS price would be made to reflect the difference in weight
between preweaned lambs or weaned feeder lambs and slaughter lambs. The
price-weight adjustment would be supplied by LMIC. This price-weight
adjustment will generally be positive, except during periods of high
feed costs.
We invite your comments on our proposed standards for the
establishment of rates for market animals, as just discussed, including
your suggestions for alternative approaches for the valuation of market
animals. The process for establishing rates for different
classifications of market animals is also illustrated in the example
provided under the heading ``Appendix--Establishing Fixed Rates.''
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iii) would contain the standards for
establishing fixed rates for different classifications of breeding
animals. As discussed previously, we are proposing to define a breeding
animal as any animal that is raised for the purpose of producing market
animals or other breeding animals and that, in the case of a female,
has donated embryos or been bred, and in the case of a male, is
sexually intact and has reached the age of sexual maturity.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iii)(A) would provide that the rates for
breeding animals would be determined based on the rates of other market
or breeding animals, and then adjusted to include any premium that
reflects the animals' breeding value. For example, the rate for
commercial sows or boars would be determined by taking the rate for a
grower-finisher pig and then adding a percentage premium to reflect its
breeding value. To mirror their higher value in the marketplace,
breeding animals that are registered animals, are part of a seedstock
herd, or have donated germ plasm that has been sold to another producer
or transferred to a separate herd or flock, would receive a higher
premium than commercial breeding animals. Proposed paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii)(B) through (E) of Sec. 53.3 would provide further
information on establishing breeding animal rates for different
classifications of beef and dairy cattle, swine, and sheep. The process
for establishing rates for different classifications of breeding
animals is also illustrated in the example provided under the heading
``Appendix--Establishing Fixed Rates.''
The valuation of breeding animals, including the assignment of
certain premiums, is based on our best estimates from available data
and our observations of the livestock marketplace. In establishing
rates for breeding animals, we looked at price information from auction
markets, breed associations, and similar sources, when available. We
also conferred with agricultural economists and other livestock
specialists within USDA. However, we recognize that publicly-available
price information on breeding animals is not as extensive as that on
market animals. We, therefore, solicit your comments and suggestions on
this issue, including alternative approaches for the valuation of
breeding animals.
We also realize that, particularly in the case of breeding animals,
there is a greater potential for variations in value within the same
category or classification of animals in comparison
[[Page 21942]]
to market animals. As discussed below under proposed Sec. 53.3(d),
claimants who disagree with the valuation of their animals would have
the opportunity to submit a written request for review to the
Administrator, explaining why the valuation of their animals should be
different than the value determined under the fixed-rate method. The
claimant would have the opportunity to submit any documentation on the
animals' breeding value that would support a valuation different from
the one determined through application of the fixed-rate method.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iii)(B) would contain the standards for
setting rates for beef cattle that qualify as breeding animals. This
includes beef cows (commercial herds); bred replacement heifers
(commercial herds); beef bulls (commercial herds); and registered
animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals.
The rate established for beef cows would be based on the same
formula used to calculate the rate for beef cattle that are feedlot
animals. A comparison of fed beef cattle prices and prices for bred
young females and middle age cows (Drovers' Journal) found that bred
cow prices were 83 percent of fed beef cattle prices. Though the
premium for breeding purposes is not readily known, we note that by
providing the same compensation rate ($/cwt) for commercial breeding
beef cows as is used for feedlot beef cattle would provide some measure
of the value given for breeding purposes. In calculating the rate for
beef cows, we would use the same average futures price ($/cwt) as used
for feedlot animals, and multiply the applicable futures price ($/cwt)
by the estimated weight set by APHIS for beef cows. The estimated
weight set by APHIS would be the average weight of beef cows based on
the most recently available information from NASS and NAHMS.
For bred replacement heifers within the beef cattle category, we
propose establishing a rate that would be 120 percent of the rate
established for beef cows. The higher rate for bred heifers in
comparison to beef cows would reflect the value of their breeding
potential. We are also proposing that the rate for beef bulls would be
250 percent of the rate established for beef cows. We invite your
comments on the proposed percentage premiums for these animals.
Beef cows or bred replacement heifers that are breeding animals and
are registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals,
would receive a rate equal to 250 percent of the rate established for
commercial beef cows. Beef bulls that qualify as breeding animals and
are registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals
would receive a rate equal to 300 percent of the rate established for
commercial beef cows. We invite your comments on the proposed
percentage premiums for these animals. We are proposing higher rates
for registered animals, animals that are part of a seedstock herd, and
donor animals to reflect their higher value in the marketplace in
comparison to commercial breeding animals. Our proposed procedures for
establishing rates for other breeding animals would also follow this
same policy.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iii)(C) would contain the standards for
setting rates for dairy cattle that are breeding animals. We would have
a rate classification for dairy breeding bulls. We are proposing that
the rate for dairy bulls would be 250 percent of the rate established
for commercial dairy cows. We would also have a separate rate
classification for dairy cows and bred replacement heifers that are
registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals. The
rate for these particular animals would be 250 percent of the rate
established for commercial dairy cows. In the case of dairy breeding
bulls that are also registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or
donor animals, we would set a rate that is 300 percent of the rate
established for commercial dairy cows. We invite your comments on the
proposed percentage premiums for these animals.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iii)(D) would contain the standards for
establishing rates for swine that are considered breeding animals. We
would have a rate classification for commercial sows and boars. We are
proposing that the rate for commercial sows and boars would be 200
percent of the rate established for grower-finisher pigs. We would also
have a second rate classification for breeding swine that are
registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals. Sows
and boars in this second rate classification would receive a rate that
would be 300 percent of the rate established for grower-finisher pigs.
We invite your comments on the proposed percentage premiums for these
animals.
We considered whether a separate rate classification should be
established for swine breeding animals that are considered foundation
stock or part of a grandparent or great-grandparent herd. While the
number of animals that would qualify for this classification would be
relatively small, such animals could merit a higher valuation in
comparison to other seedstock animals. However, we could not determine
a general rate criteria to cover this situation. So owners that believe
their swine breeding animals merit a higher valuation under these
circumstance could submit a written request for review to the
Administrator, as discussed in proposed Sec. 53.3(d). We invite your
comments on this issue, including your suggestions for alternative
approaches for the valuation of swine breeding animals.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iii)(E) would provide the standards for
establishing rates for sheep that qualify as breeding animals. This
would include ewes and rams (commercial flocks), as well as registered
animals, animals in a seedstock flock, and donor animals.
We are proposing that rates for commercial ewes and rams would be
based on the same formula used to calculate the rate for slaughter
lambs. The slaughter lamb price is greater than the cull ewe slaughter
price or the cull ram slaughter price. By providing the higher lamb
slaughter price for breeding ewes and rams and applying the breeding
animal weight, we recognize a premium that these breeding animals might
receive. We would take the average AMS price ($/cwt) determined for
slaughter lambs, as discussed previously in proposed
Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(ii)(D), and multiply that average price by the
estimated weight set by APHIS for commercial ewes and rams. The
estimated weight set by APHIS for commercial breeding ewes and rams
would be the average weight of those animals based on the most recently
available information from NASS and NAHMS.
Breeding ewes that are also registered animals, part of a seedstock
flock, or donor animals, would receive a rate equal to 200 percent of
the rate established for commercial breeding ewes. Similarly, breeding
rams that are also registered animals, part of a seedstock flock, or
donor animals, would receive a rate equal to 200 percent of the rate
set for commercial breeding rams. We invite your comments on the
proposed percentage premiums for these animals.
We realize that there may be unique situations where the valuation
of animals by the fixed-rate method would be unsuitable. As provided in
proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iv), an owner of animals subject to valuation
by the fixed-rate method may submit a written request to the
Administrator asking that the animals affected by disease and subject
to destruction be valued by appraisal instead of by fixed-rate method.
The owner would have to include in the request the reasons why
valuation by the fixed-rate method would be unsuitable. In determining
whether to
[[Page 21943]]
grant the request, the Administrator would take into account whether
providing the time and personnel to conduct an appraisal would
compromise efforts to effectively control and eradicate the disease.
The decision by the Administrator regarding the owner's request for
appraisal would be final. A denial of a request for an appraisal under
proposed Sec. 53.3(a)(2)(iv) would not affect the owner's right to
request a review of the actual valuation made, as discussed below under
proposed Sec. 53.3(d).
We invite your comments on our proposed standards for the
establishment of rates for breeding animals, as just discussed. We also
welcome your suggestions for alternative approaches for the valuation
of breeding animals.
Proposed Sec. 53.3(b) covers the requirements for the valuation of
materials to be destroyed because of being contaminated by or exposed
to a disease agent. The regulations currently do not address the
valuation of materials except to require that the materials be
appraised by an APHIS employee and a State representative, or,
alternatively, by an APHIS employee alone, and that the information on
the appraised value must be reported on forms furnished by APHIS
showing, when practicable, the number, size, or quantity, unit price,
and total value of each kind of material appraised.
In proposed Sec. 53.3(b), we would clarify that the value of
materials destroyed because of contamination by or exposure to a
disease agent would be the material's fair market value based on an
appraisal. The appraisal of materials would be conducted jointly by an
APHIS representative and a State representative, or, if the State
authorities approve, by an APHIS representative alone. However, in the
case of FMD only, we are proposing that if the Administrator determines
that appraisal would be impracticable, or would otherwise compromise
efforts to effectively control and eradicate the disease, the
Administrator may authorize the value of materials to be determined by
other means, such as through records or other documentation maintained
by the claimant indicating the value of the materials destroyed.
As in the case of animals, requiring the appraisal of contaminated
materials prior to their destruction could prove to be impracticable,
and actually compromise our ability to control and eradicate the
occurrence of FMD. Contaminated materials subject to destruction would
have to be disposed of promptly. Depending on the number of sites that
would have to be visited by appraisers, there may not be a sufficient
number of trained personnel in the area to carry out these activities
in a timely manner. In such cases, the Administrator would have to
determine whether requiring appraisal would undermine efforts to
control and eradicate the disease.
We would add a new paragraph, to appear at Sec. 53.3(c), that would
cover other compensation allowed by the regulations (i.e., costs for
cleaning and disinfection). In proposed Sec. 53.3(c)(1), we would
provide that compensation for cleaning and disinfection costs would be
based on receipts or other documentation maintained by the claimant
that verify the expenditures made for cleaning and disinfection
activities authorized under part 53. We are proposing that compensation
be based on proof of expenditures. We realize, however, that there
would be cases where claimants would wish to carry out any cleaning and
disinfection activities on their own without hiring others to do the
work. Our proposal does not currently provide a means for compensating
such ``sweat equity,'' but we invite your comments and suggestions that
would address compensating cleaning and disinfection work performed
directly by the claimant.
We are also proposing to add a new paragraph, to appear at
Sec. 53.3(d), that would cover a claimant's right to request a review.
A claimant who disagrees with the valuation in total of all animals or
all materials or the amount of other compensation determined under
Sec. 53.3 may submit a written request for review to the Administrator.
We are proposing that the request for review take into account all
animals or materials covered under the valuation since we want to
consider the totality of circumstances. Particularly in the case of
animals, the valuation may be based on the entire herd of a particular
class of animals. For example, in applying a fixed rate to a herd of
animals, some individual animals in the herd may be worth more than the
average price paid per animal, others may be worth less. If a producer
could challenge the per animal payment of only selected animals, the
compensation claim could be more than the total value of the herd. Our
goal is to make the producer whole, but not to exceed that. Thus, the
claimant would have to include in the request the reasons, including
any supporting documentation, that the total valuation of all animals
or all materials or the amount of other compensation should be
different from the valuation or amount determined by appraisal, fixed-
rate method, or other means provided for in proposed Sec. 53.3. The
decision by the Administrator regarding the valuation of animals or
materials or the amount of other compensation would be final.
We would remove without replacement the information that appears in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of current Sec. 53.3 on the submission of claim
forms seeking compensation for animals or materials destroyed. This
subject would be covered under the section on presentation of claims,
to appear at proposed Sec. 53.7.
Destruction of Animals
Current Sec. 53.4 covers the destruction of animals affected by or
exposed to disease, as well as the manner of their disposition.
Paragraph (a) of current Sec. 53.4 provides that animals affected by or
exposed to disease shall be killed promptly after appraisal and
disposed of by burial or burning, unless otherwise specifically
provided by the Administrator, at his or her discretion. Section 53.4,
paragraph (a), also provides that in the case of animals depopulated
due to infectious salmon anemia, salvageable fish may be sold for
rendering, processing, or any other purpose approved by the
Administrator. If fish retain salvage value, the proceeds gained from
the sale of the fish will be subtracted from any indemnity payment from
APHIS for which the producer is eligible under Sec. 53.2(b).
We are proposing to make several changes to current Sec. 53.4(a).
First, we would amend the term ``animals affected by or exposed to
disease'' to read ``animals affected by disease'' for purposes of
consistency, as discussed previously. We would use the word
``valuation'' in place of ``appraisal'' since the valuation of animals
in the case of FMD may not always be based on appraisal. The word
``destroyed'' would be used in place of ``killed'' to be consistent
with similar references in other sections of the regulations. We would
also clarify that the requirement that animals affected by disease be
destroyed promptly following valuation would not apply to official
vaccinates. We would also strike the language that provides for the
disposition of animals by means other than burial or burning if
``specifically provided by the Administrator, at his or her
discretion.'' We would instead provide that the animals would be
``disposed of by burial, burning, or other manner approved by the
Administrator as not contributing to the spread of the disease.''
Paragraph (b) of current Sec. 53.4 provides that the killing of
animals and
[[Page 21944]]
the burial, burning, or other disposition of carcasses shall be
supervised by an APHIS employee who shall prepare and transmit to the
Administrator a report identifying the animals and showing their
disposition. We would substitute ``APHIS representative'' for ``APHIS
employee'' based on our previously-discussed proposal of using the term
``APHIS representative'' in place of ``APHIS employee'' throughout the
regulations. Similarly, we would substitute the word ``destroyed'' for
``killed'' for purposes of consistency, as discussed above. We would
also amend current Sec. 53.4(b) to provide that the destruction and
disposition of animals could also take place under the supervision of a
State representative. This change would allow us greater flexibility in
deploying personnel without compromising our ability to ensure that
animal depopulation is carried out under qualified supervision. We
would substitute the word ``must'' in place of ``shall'' in the phrase
``shall be supervised'' for stylistic reasons. Finally, we would make a
minor change in sentence construction by amending the statement ``who
shall prepare and transmit to the Administrator a report identifying
the animals and showing the disposition thereof'' to instead state
``who will prepare and transmit to the Administrator a report
identifying the animals destroyed and the manner of their
disposition.''
Subject to certain exceptions that may include exotic or rare
animals or endangered or threatened species, as discussed below,
vaccinated animals would be destroyed as part of an FMD eradication
program. However, nonvaccinated animals affected with FMD would be
destroyed first. Thus, it may be necessary for vaccinated animals to be
held on a premises for an indeterminate length of time prior to
destruction. To clarify the different treatment that may be afforded
official vaccinates compared to other animals affected by disease, we
would provide in proposed Sec. 53.4(c) that official vaccinates would
be destroyed or otherwise handled in a manner as directed by the
Administrator to prevent the dissemination of the disease. We would
further add that official vaccinates not subject to destruction may
include, at the discretion of the Administrator, exotic animals, rare
animals, or animals belonging to an endangered or threatened species.
This policy of protecting from destruction certain exotic or rare
animals, or animals belonging to an endangered or threatened species
might arise, for example, in the case of official vaccinates housed in
a zoo.
We would also provide in proposed Sec. 53.4(c) that if official
vaccinates are allowed to move to a slaughtering or rendering facility
in lieu of destruction or disposition by other means, then any proceeds
gained from the sale of the animals to the slaughtering or rendering
facility will be subtracted from any indemnity payment from APHIS for
which the producer is eligible under proposed Sec. 53.2(a)(2). Allowing
animals to move to a slaughtering or rendering facility in lieu of
destruction and disposition by other means would apply only to those
animals officially vaccinated for FMD. Our policy for the control and
eradication of disease calls for all other animals affected by disease
to be destroyed and disposed of by burial, burning, other manner
approved by the Administrator.
The information regarding salvageable fish being sold for
rendering, processing, or other purpose, which now appears in
Sec. 53.4(a), would be moved without change to proposed Sec. 53.4(d).
Disinfection and Destruction of Materials
Current Sec. 53.5 provides for the disinfection or destruction of
materials contaminated by or exposed to disease. Paragraph (a) of
current Sec. 53.5 states that such materials shall be disinfected and,
if the cost of disinfection exceeds the value of the materials or
disinfection would be impracticable, the materials shall be destroyed
after appraisal as provided in Sec. 53.3. Paragraph (b) of current
Sec. 53.5 provides that the disinfection or destruction of materials
under Sec. 53.5 shall take place under the supervision of an APHIS
employee who shall prepare and transmit to the Administrator a
certificate identifying all materials that are destroyed, showing the
disposition thereof.
Current Sec. 53.7 covers the disinfection of premises, conveyances,
and materials, providing that all premises, including barns, corrals,
stockyards and pens, and all cars, vessels, aircraft, and other
conveyances, and the materials thereon, shall be cleaned and
disinfected under the supervision of an APHIS employee whenever
necessary for the control and eradication of disease. Expenses incurred
in connection with such cleaning and disinfection shall be shared
according to the agreement reached with the State.
The information contained in current Secs. 53.5 and 53.7 overlap in
certain respects. To eliminate this redundancy, we are proposing to
include the information that appears in both these sections under
Sec. 53.5 alone. In making these changes, we would refer to materials
that have been ``contaminated by or exposed to a disease agent''
instead of materials that have been contaminated by or exposed to
disease for purposes of consistency with similar proposed references
elsewhere in part 53. We would substitute the term ``value'' for
``appraisal'' since the valuation of materials may not always be based
on appraisal, as discussed previously in our proposed changes to
Sec. 53.3. We would also use ``APHIS representative'' in place of
``APHIS employee'' for the reasons discussed previously. We would also
provide that the disinfection or destruction of materials could also
take place under the supervision of a ``State representative'' to allow
us greater flexibility in deploying personnel without compromising our
ability to ensure that the disinfection or destruction of materials is
carried out under qualified supervision. We would substitute the word
``must'' in place of ``shall'' in the phrase ``shall be supervised''
for stylistic reasons. We would use the word ``report'' in place of
``certificate'' in describing the document that the APHIS
representative or State representative would submit to the
Administrator listing all materials destroyed. We would also strike out
the last sentence in current Sec. 53.7 that provides that cleaning and
disinfection expenses shall be shared according to the agreement
reached under Sec. 53.2. As explained earlier, this topic would be
covered in proposed Sec. 53.2.
As revised, proposed Sec. 53.5 would provide that all materials
that have been contaminated by or exposed to a disease agent would have
to be cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of an APHIS
representative or a State representative. However, if the cost of
cleaning and disinfection of materials would exceed the materials'
value or if the cleaning and disinfection of materials would be
impracticable, the materials will be destroyed under the supervision of
an APHIS representative or State representative, upon determination of
their value as provided in proposed Sec. 53.3. The APHIS representative
or State representative would prepare and transmit to the Administrator
a report identifying all materials destroyed and the manner of their
disposition.
As part of these proposed changes to combine Secs. 53.5 and 53.7,
current Sec. 53.7 would be removed in its entirety and current
Sec. 53.8 would be redesignated as Sec. 53.7.
[[Page 21945]]
Cleaning and Disinfection of Animals
Current Sec. 53.6 provides that animals of species not susceptible
to the disease for which a quarantine has been established, but which
have been exposed to the disease, shall be disinfected when necessary
by such methods as the Administrator shall prescribe from time to time.
We would amend Sec. 53.6 to instead provide that such animals must be
cleaned and disinfected, as directed by, and under the supervision of,
an APHIS representative or a State representative. We would insert a
reference to the APHIS or State representative in place of the
Administrator since the oversight of this activity would be performed
by an APHIS or State representative. We would also make a change in the
section heading and text by referring to this activity as ``cleaning
and disinfection'' instead of ``disinfection'' to be consistent with
other such references in the regulations.
The regulations currently do not provide for the compensation of
costs relating to the cleaning and disinfection of nonsusceptible
animals as is done for materials that are contaminated by or exposed to
a disease agent. However, we are seriously considering whether these
costs should be eligible for compensation in the case of FMD to further
ensure the willingness of affected parties to take part in an FMD
eradication campaign. Should paying for this activity be a
responsibility of the producer or of the Federal Government through the
payment of compensation?
Typically, the first mitigation strategy involving nonsusceptible
animals is to restrict their movement from the affected area, farm, or
other premises. However, another mitigation measure is to clean and
disinfect such animals. This may simply entail applying a bleach or
similar solution to the hooves or paws of the animals. We believe the
cleaning and disinfection of nonsusceptible animals, when necessary,
will be vital in the case of FMD, since nonsusceptible animals could
spread FMD even though they themselves would not become infected.
Therefore, we seek your comments on whether the regulations should
authorize compensation for costs relating to the cleaning and
disinfection of nonsusceptible animals to further ensure that all means
of spreading the virus are eliminated. We also invite your comments on
the types of costs and the amount of expenditures that might be
incurred in the cleaning and disinfection of nonsusceptible animals.
We would consider nonsusceptible animals to include animals that
are not susceptible to the disease for which a quarantine has been
established but that are capable of transmitting the disease agent as a
mechanical vector if exposed to it. By ``mechanical vector,'' we mean
an animal or inanimate object that carries a microorganism with no
replication occurring.
In addition to providing compensation for costs of cleaning and
disinfection of nonsusceptible animals in the event of FMD, we are also
considering whether the Administrator should be authorized to provide
compensation for the destruction of nonsusceptible animals in the event
the costs of cleaning and disinfection would exceed the animals' value,
or, alternatively, if cleaning and disinfection of the animals would be
impracticable. This situation could arise if both the nonsusceptible
animals and the structure they are housed in have to be cleaned and
disinfected as a result of their proximity to infected animals. In the
case of certain nonsusceptible animals such as poultry, it may not be
economically feasible to adequately clean and disinfect the poultry
given their market value, or it may be otherwise impracticable to clean
and disinfect the animals. Animals subject to destruction under such
circumstances would be valued, for purposes of indemnification, in
accordance with proposed Sec. 53.3 and destroyed and disposed of in
accordance with proposed Sec. 53.4. We expect that this situation would
arise only in limited situations. Under most circumstances, animal
confinement during the disease occurrence, or cleaning and
disinfection, or some combination of these measures, should obviate any
need to destroy nonsusceptible animals exposed to FMD. However, we
still seek your comments on whether the regulations should provide the
Administrator with the authority to compensate the owners of
nonsusceptible animals under this limited situation in the case of FMD.
Presentation of Claims
Current Sec. 53.8 provides that claims for compensation for the
value of animals, the cost of burial, burning or other disposition of
animals, the value of material destroyed, and the expenses of
destruction, shall each be presented, through the inspector in charge,
to APHIS on separate vouchers.
With the proposed removal of current Sec. 53.7, current Sec. 53.8
covering presentation of claims would become Sec. 53.7. We are
proposing to revise this provision without changing its substantive
meaning by simply providing in new paragraph (a) that claims for
compensation under this part must each be presented by the claimant to
an APHIS representative on forms approved by APHIS. The basis for
seeking compensation in part 53 would be covered in proposed Sec. 53.2.
We would add that claims for animals or materials destroyed must be
presented by the owner or the owner's designated representative. We
would also add that the claimant shall provide any available supporting
documents that will assist the Administrator, or that are requested by
the Administrator, in verifying the quantity and value of animals or
materials destroyed and the costs of their disposition, the costs of
cleaning and disinfection, and any other costs incurred under this part
for which compensation is sought. Examples of supporting documentation
could include production records, purchase and sales records, breeding
records, registration papers, and receipts.
We are also proposing to move the information on mortgages against
animals or materials that is currently covered under Sec. 53.9 to
proposed Sec. 53.7(b). Current Sec. 53.9 provides that any claim for
indemnity for animals or materials destroyed pursuant to the
regulations shall be presented by the owner of the animals or materials
on forms furnished by APHIS. The owner shall indicate on the forms
whether or not the applicable animals or materials are subject to a
mortgage. If the animals or materials are subject to a mortgage, then
the owner and each person holding a mortgage on the applicable animals
or materials shall sign the forms to indicate their consent to the
payment of any indemnity to the person specified on the form.
We would make certain changes to the provision on mortgages that
would appear in proposed Sec. 53.7(b). We would substitute the phrase
``on forms approved by APHIS'' in place of ``on forms furnished by
APHIS'' to allow for the possibility that someone other than APHIS may
distribute the forms. We would also amend the second sentence which
begins, ``If the owner states there is a mortgage * * *'' to instead
read ``If there is a mortgage * * *'' to clarify that the applicability
of this provision would be triggered by the existence of a mortgage,
regardless of whether the owner asserts its existence. We would make
several other modifications in sentence construction and eliminate the
use of the words ``thereby'' and ``thereon'' to make the provision
easier to understand. We are also proposing to remove, for reasons of
redundancy, the word ``allowed'' that appears in the phrase
``consenting to the payment of any indemnity allowed,'' as well as
[[Page 21946]]
change the phrase ``pursuant to the requirements contained in this
part'' to read ``pursuant to this part.'' As amended, proposed
Sec. 53(b) would provide that when animals or materials have been
destroyed pursuant to part 53, the owner of the animals or materials
would have to certify on the claim for compensation whether or not the
applicable animals or materials are subject to any mortgage. If there
is a mortgage, the owner and each person holding a mortgage on the
animals or materials would have to sign forms approved by APHIS
indicating they consent to the payment of any indemnity to the person
specified on the forms.
In covering mortgages against animals or materials in proposed
Sec. 53.7(b), we would remove current Sec. 53.9 in its entirety from
the regulations.
Claims Not Allowed
Current Sec. 53.10 lists certain situations where claims for
compensation will not be allowed. With the removal of current
Secs. 53.7 and 53.9, current Sec. 53.10 would become Sec. 53.8. We
would also make certain other changes to this section.
Paragraph (a) of current Sec. 53.10 provides that the Department
will not allow claims arising under part 53 if the payee has not
complied ``with all quarantine requirements.'' Under proposed
Sec. 53.8(a), we would elaborate on this requirement by providing that
the payee must comply ``with all Federal quarantine requirements or
State quarantine requirements consistent with Federal law or
regulations in effect for the control and eradication of disease.''
In current Sec. 53.10(b), we provide that expenses for the care and
feeding of animals held for destruction will not be paid by the
Department unless the payment of such expenses is specifically
authorized or approved by the Administrator. In proposed Sec. 53.8(b),
we would make a stylistic change by substituting the words ``costs''
and ``cost'' in place of ``expenses'' and ``expense.''
Paragraph (c) of current Sec. 53.10 states that we will not allow
claims arising out of the destruction of animals or materials unless
the animals or materials have been ``appraised'' as prescribed in the
regulations and the owners have executed a written agreement to the
appraisals. Since we are proposing that animals or materials could be
valued by means other than appraisal in certain circumstances, we would
instead provide that the Department will not allow claims arising out
of the destruction of animals or materials unless the animals or
materials have been ``valued'' as prescribed in the regulations. Under
proposed Sec. 53.8(c), we would also not include the condition that
owners must execute a written agreement to the appraisals. We do not
believe such a provision is necessary since we are would provide
claimants the option of requesting a review by the Administrator if
they believe the valuation of animals or materials is inadequate. (See
previous discussion under ``Payments for Animals and Materials, Other
Compensation, Request for Review.'')
In current Sec. 53.10(d), we provide that the Department will not
allow claims arising out of the destruction of animals or materials
which have been moved or handled by ``the owner * * * or its officer,
employee, or agent acting within the scope of his or its office,
employment or agency, in violation of a law or regulation administered
by the Secretary for the prevention of the introduction into or the
dissemination within the United States of any communicable disease of
livestock or poultry for which the animal or material was destroyed, or
in violation of a law or regulation for the enforcement of which the
Secretary enters or has entered into a cooperative agreement for the
control and eradication of such disease.''
Under proposed Sec. 53.8(d), we would provide that the Department
will not allow claims arising out of the destruction of animals or
materials in violation of any ``Federal law or regulation, or any State
law or regulation consistent with a Federal law or regulation,'' that
is administered to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any
``contagious or infectious animal disease or any communicable livestock
or poultry disease'' for which the animal or material was destroyed. A
cooperative program for the control and eradication of disease may be
carried out largely under State laws and regulations. By not allowing
claims for violations of either Federal laws or regulations, or State
laws or regulations that are consistent with Federal laws or
regulations, we would encourage public compliance and thereby enhance
the effectiveness of the cooperative program to control and eradicate
disease. We would amend the reference to ``communicable livestock or
poultry disease'' to state ``any contagious or infectious animal
disease or any communicable livestock or poultry disease'' to be
consistent with our earlier proposed change to the definition of
disease. We would also delete the specific reference to not allowing
claims on the basis of ``violation of any related cooperative
agreement,'' and just rely on the violation of the applicable law or
regulation as the basis for not allowing a claim.
A key element in the successful eradication of a disease that
spreads as quickly as FMD is the earliest possible detection and
reporting of potentially diseased animals. A primary purpose for this
rulemaking is to remove possible sources of delay so that any outbreak
of FMD can be eradicated quickly. Prompt reporting could save the
economy billions of dollars, as well as prevent significant disruptions
to the economy. Prompt detection and reporting require knowledge and
vigilance on the part of producers, industry, and State, local, and
Federal governments, working cooperatively. Although the subject of
reporting of animal diseases is not specifically addressed in this
proposal, we invite public comment on ways to encourage timely
reporting of potentially diseased animals, including, but not limited
to, adjustments to compensation.
We would make certain other changes to proposed Sec. 53.8(d) to
make it easier to understand without changing its substantive meaning.
We would remove the reference to an ``officer, employee, or agent
acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency''
and instead use the phrase ``the owner's representative acting on
behalf of the owner.'' We would also remove the word ``thereof'' and
the phrase ``within the United States,'' as well as make several other
minor changes in sentence construction and word usage to make the
provision easier to understand.
Miscellaneous
The regulations, immediately below the table of contents and the
authority citation, provide a cross reference that states, ``For non-
applicability of part 53 with respect to certain claims for indemnity,
see Sec. 51.10 of this chapter.'' Section 51.10 appears in the
regulations in 9 CFR part 51 for animals destroyed because of
brucellosis. Section 51.10 provides that no claim for indemnity for
animals destroyed under 9 CFR part 51 shall be paid under the
regulations in part 53. The regulations covering animals destroyed
because of tuberculosis in 9 CFR part 50 also contain a provision at
Sec. 50.15 that provides that no claim for indemnity for cattle or
bison destroyed because of tuberculosis shall be paid pursuant to the
regulations in part 53. We are proposing to amend the cross reference
that appears below the table of contents and authority citation in part
53 by inserting a reference to Sec. 50.15. We
[[Page 21947]]
would also make a technical correction to the authority citation
immediately below the table of contents by adding a reference to 21
U.S.C. 134a-134h.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this proposed rule. It
provides a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive Order 12866,
as well as an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which considers
the potential economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities,
as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Please refer to Docket No.
01-069-1 when requesting copies. The full analysis is also available on
the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/fmdanalysis.pdf. The
economic analysis is also available for review in our reading room
(information on the location and hours of the reading room is listed
under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document).
We do not currently have all of the data necessary for a
comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small
entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In
particular, we are interested in determining the numbers and kinds of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation
of this proposed rule.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 111, 114, 114a, and 134a-134h, the
Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to promulgate regulations
and take measures to prevent the introduction into the United States
and the interstate dissemination within the United States of any
communicable diseases of livestock and poultry, as well as any
contagious or infectious diseases of animals that in the opinion of the
Secretary constitute an emergency and threaten the livestock or poultry
of the United States, and to pay claims growing out of the destruction
of animals and materials. Animal health regulations promulgated by the
Department under this authority include those regarding payment of
claims in 9 CFR part 53.
Summary of the Cost-Benefit Analysis
Our analysis examines the potential economic effects of proposed
changes affecting indemnification and other compensation paid for
losses due to the occurrence of FMD in the United States. Recent
occurrences of FMD in a number of formerly FMD-free regions have
demonstrated both the speed with which an FMD outbreak can spread and
the magnitude of its consequences.
An FMD occurrence in the United States could be devastating, given
the Nation's extensive livestock holdings. Besides the direct economic
effects on ruminant and swine producers, consequences of the disease
would ripple through the economy, causing indirect costs in sectors
beyond agriculture. International movement of many commodities would be
disrupted by restrictions imposed by trading partners. Costs of an FMD
occurrence to the Nation's economy could reach to billions of dollars,
if not quickly controlled. The Department is engaged in a number of
planning and operational activities expected to reduce the likelihood
of an FMD occurrence and, if FMD is introduced, to prevent impacts from
reaching catastrophic levels. Nonetheless, the risk of an FMD
introduction into the United States is ever present, given today's
highly mobile environment and global agricultural economy.
The regulations currently provide that upon agreement of the State,
the Administrator is authorized to pay 50 percent (and in the case of
infectious salmon anemia up to 60 percent, and in the case of exotic
Newcastle disease or highly avian influenza up to 100 percent) of the
expenses of the purchase, destruction, and disposition of animals and
materials required to be destroyed because of being contaminated by or
exposed to disease. The Administrator is also authorized to pay up to
100 percent of the purchase, destruction, and disposition of animals
exposed to such disease prior to or during interstate movement that are
not eligible to receive indemnity from any State. The Secretary of
Agriculture may authorize other arrangements in the case of an
extraordinary emergency.
Under the current regulations, animals and materials subject to
destruction are valued based on an appraisal. The regulations currently
do not expressly provide for compensation for official vaccinates. In
addition to compensation for destroyed property, the Administrator is
authorized to indemnify for cleaning and disinfection costs in
accordance with the cost sharing agreement with the State.
A rapid, coordinated response by the public and private sectors in
the early stages of an FMD occurrence is imperative, if devastating
losses are to be prevented. The purpose of this proposed rule is to
remove possible sources of delay in achieving FMD eradication. Under
the existing regulations, delays may occur because of certain
producers' perceptions, as well as eradication program requirements. In
the first instance, delays can derive from livestock owners'
uncertainty of being fully compensated for the fair market value of
destroyed animals, products, and materials, including livestock
vaccinated as part of an eradication program (official vaccinates).
Owners of affected herds may also be uncertain that they will receive
full compensation for cleaning and disinfection costs. In the second
instance, delays may be caused by having to rely on appraisal for the
valuation of livestock when an insufficient number of appraisers or
other constraints would prevent timely destruction of infected and
exposed animals.
The proposed rule sets forth regulatory changes to address these
possible sources of delay in the event of an outbreak of FMD. First,
the Department would pay 100 percent of the costs for the purchase,
destruction, and disposition of animals affected by FMD, including
official vaccinates. The Department would also pay 100 percent of the
costs for cleaning and disinfection of materials that are contaminated
by or exposed to FMD. If the costs of cleaning and disinfection exceed
the value of the materials, or cleaning and disinfection would be
impracticable, then the Department would pay 100 percent of the
purchase, destruction, and disposition of such materials. These changes
are intended to allay any concerns on the part of affected entities
that States would be unable to fund their shares of compensation
payments.
Second, livestock valuation based on a set of fixed rates would be
made available as an alternative to appraisal. Fixed compensation rates
would potentially enable FMD-affected herds to be compensated more
quickly with less risk of disease spread.
A third change would provide that in the case of FMD only, if an
appraisal of materials to be destroyed is found to be impracticable, or
would otherwise compromise efforts to effectively control and eradicate
the disease, the Department may authorize the material's fair market
value to be determined by other means, such as through records or other
documentation maintained by the claimant indicating
[[Page 21948]]
the value of the materials destroyed. This option could eliminate
another potential source of delay in determining the value of materials
subject to destruction.
The Department would respond to an FMD occurrence by entering into
a cooperative control and eradication program with States or others, or
alternatively, in the case of an extraordinary emergency, take action
upon determination that the State is not taking adequate measures in
regard to the control and eradication of disease. In the full analysis,
we use a cooperative program under the auspices of the current
regulations and an extraordinary emergency determination as baselines
for measuring the effects of the proposed rule, if implemented.
The regulations currently authorize the Department to pay 50
percent of the cost of purchase, destruction, and disposition of
animals and materials required to be destroyed under a cooperative
program for most diseases, including FMD. Affected States would be
expected to fund the remaining 50 percent of compensation. Compensation
for costs of cleaning and disinfection of products or materials that
have been contaminated by or exposed to FMD would be shared by the
Department and State, in accordance with the agreement reached by the
two parties. The regulations currently do not expressly provide for
owners of official vaccinates to be compensated for their destruction.
In the case of an FMD emergency, a rule would probably be quickly
promulgated that would allow compensation for official vaccinates.
In the case of an extraordinary emergency, the Department would be
authorized to seize, quarantine, and dispose of any affected or exposed
animals, carcasses, products, or articles. Under an extraordinary
emergency, the Department is statutorily required to pay compensation
for any animal or material destroyed based on its fair market value,
and such compensation cannot exceed the difference between any
compensation received from a State or other source and such fair market
value. The Department's compensation responsibilities and costs and
eradication program costs in general are likely to be larger in the
case of an extraordinary emergency than they would be under a
cooperative program, and States' responsibilities and costs will be
correspondingly smaller.
Comparing the proposed rule to the existing regulations in the
context of a cooperative program, the major impacts for the Department
would be a significantly larger budgetary obligation and an eradication
program less subject to possible sources of delay. Assumption of
States' 50 percent share of compensation payments under the proposed
rule would reduce livestock owners' uncertainty about being fully
compensated for losses. Less uncertainty is expected to lead to
improved levels of participation and cooperation in the eradication
effort. Provision of fixed rates as an alternative to appraisal for
valuing compensated livestock will also remove possible eradication
delays. Other potential benefits of using fixed rates will be a reduced
risk of mechanical transmission of FMD, and lower operational costs.
For States, the budgetary impact of the proposed rule in the case
of an extraordinary emergency will be just the opposite. Department
funding of all compensation payments will provide significant financial
savings to States in the event of an FMD occurrence. However, States
may still face numerous direct and indirect FMD costs and some share of
eradication program costs in the event of a serious FMD outbreak.
For affected industries and livestock owners, the main impact of
the proposed rule as applied in a cooperative program will be increased
confidence that affected parties will receive full fair market value
when compensated for destroyed animals and materials. This reassurance
will encourage the private sector's participation and cooperation in
the eradication program. In the end, fewer livestock operations may be
directly affected because the higher level of cooperation will lessen
the possibility of eradication program delays. In addition, the more
quickly eradication is accomplished, the smaller will be industry
losses due to quarantines and international trade restrictions.
Affected entities will still bear uncompensated costs, from lost
income because of downtime, to restocking difficulties and market
restrictions. Trade losses and other industry-wide impacts will also
still occur.
In comparing the proposed rule versus the current regulations in
the case of an extraordinary emergency, the total amount of
compensation paid by the Department would be much the same in both
cases.
While affected industries and livestock owners would be fully
compensated by the Department for destroyed livestock and materials
both in an extraordinary emergency and under the proposed rule, they
would still face uncompensated costs such as lost income and fixed
costs.
Compensation costs incurred by the Department in the event of an
FMD occurrence would depend on the characteristics of the outbreak and
mitigation strategy. Two hypothetical examples of FMD occurrences and
resulting livestock compensation are presented, to demonstrate the main
compensation funding impacts of the proposed rule for the Department
and affected States, in comparison to cooperative conditions. (A
comparison of compensation funding with the proposed rule to funding
under extraordinary emergency conditions is pointless, since the
Department would pay 100 percent of compensation in both instances.)
The first example assumes a 7 percent loss of U.S. livestock, which
was the percentage of the United Kingdom's livestock destroyed in 2001
because of FMD. After adjusting for differences in the relative
percentages of cattle, swine, and sheep in the United States compared
to those in the United Kingdom, and applying a set of fixed rates
calculated using procedures set forth in the analysis, payments for
destroyed animals were found to total $7.3 billion. Related analyses,
given assumed numbers of FMD-affected premises, yield compensation
payments for cleaning and disinfection of premises that total $279
million.
Under this first example, and based on the compensation provisions
in the current regulations, we estimate the Department and affected
States would each bear compensation payments of about $3.8 billion in a
cooperative program. Under the proposed rule, the Department's
compensation payments would increase to about $7.6 billion. The impact
would be for Department compensation payments to increase by $3.8
billion (the States' 50 percent share of compensation for destroyed
animals and cleaning and disinfection costs). Most likely, total
Department compensation payments would be some lesser amount if
eradication delays that would otherwise occur (because of producers'
uncertainties about State funding or reliance solely on appraisal for
the valuation of livestock and materials) were avoided. While affected
States would not be obliged to pay compensation, they would still bear
other costs of the disease and its eradication.
The second hypothetical example assumes a smaller FMD occurrence,
and shows the same pattern of compensation payments with and without
the proposed rule. Without the rule, the Department and affected States
would each pay about $216 million, that is, one-half of compensation
for destroyed animals and cleaning and disinfection costs. Under the
proposed rule, the Department's compensation in a
[[Page 21949]]
cooperative program with States and other cooperators would increase to
$432 million, that is, 100 percent of compensation. The overall impact
would be for the Department's compensation burden to increase by $216
million (the States' 50 percent share of compensation for destroyed
animals and cleaning and disinfection costs). Again, these costs may be
overstated, since there could be savings through the avoidance of
eradication delays. Also, States would not pay compensation under the
proposed rule, but would face other costs relating to the control and
eradication of disease.
The two examples illustrate the proposed rule's shift in
compensation payments from affected States to the Department in the
case of a cooperative program. However, as noted above, States and the
private sector would face other costs including a portion of FMD
eradication program costs, income losses and fixed costs for livestock
and related industries, and economy-wide indirect impacts. Because
these other costs remain uncompensated under the proposed rule, States
and livestock owners will still have strong incentives to remain
vigilant for the first signs of disease, and to cooperate fully with
the Department if there is an FMD occurrence.
FMD eradication and compensation costs will depend on the scale of
the occurrence of the disease, which in turn will depend on how quickly
and effectively the Department, States, and private entities can
respond. States and the private sector will be positively affected by
eradication efforts less prone to delay: Fewer livestock and wildlife
populations will be directly affected, producers and exporters will be
able to reestablish their operations sooner, and business losses for
input suppliers, transporters, and other indirectly affected businesses
will be smaller. Conversely, a protracted eradication effort will mean
heightened losses and larger eradication costs.
The benefits of this proposed rule are several. Payment of 100
percent compensation for animals and materials destroyed in the event
of FMD, as well as related cleaning and disinfection costs, should
eliminate uncertainty on the part of livestock owners about States'
ability to fund their share of FMD compensation. It should encourage
fully committed participation by affected parties. Otherwise, such
uncertainty could cause delays in an FMD eradication campaign.
The option of using fixed rates in place of appraisal in valuing
livestock should also remove possible eradication delays in those
situations where appraisal is impracticable or would otherwise
compromise eradication efforts. The use of fixed rates should result in
program savings, since their application would require fewer resources
than appraisal. Fixed rates should also lower risks of mechanical
disease transmission, since there would be less human contact with
infected animals.
In sum, the changes in this proposed rule would strengthen programs
for the control and eradication of FMD by broadening the Departmental's
options. The changes would be particularly important in lessening the
chances that FMD's eradication will be delayed.
As alternatives to the proposed rule, the current regulations as
applied to cooperative programs and extraordinary emergencies have
shortcomings. The current regulations under a cooperative program
contain possible sources of eradication program delay.
Under an extraordinary emergency, USDA compensation for animals and
materials destroyed would be the same under the current regulations and
proposed rule. However, under the current regulations appraisal would
be the only method of valuation, and costs to USDA of conducting an FMD
eradication campaign would be higher (and costs to States
correspondingly lower). Policy changes would need to be planned and
implemented immediately.
Summary of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Agencies are required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to evaluate the potential economic effects of
proposed rules on small entities. We do not have enough information to
fully evaluate the potential effect of this proposed rule on small
entities. As such, we are inviting comments addressing this issue. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kinds of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from implementation of
this proposed rule, and if there are any special issues relating to the
business practices of these small entities that would make them
particularly different from larger firms in their ability to comply
with this proposed rule. However, we have made some initial
conclusions.
The changes in this proposed rule would directly affect ruminant or
swine operations whose herds or flocks are affected by FMD. Other
businesses that sell or deal with animal products and byproducts could
also be affected by the proposed rule if their commodities were
destroyed as part of an eradication program. For purposes of
illustration, our analysis focuses on an occurrence of FMD. Therefore,
entities directly affected by the proposed rule in the case of an FMD
occurrence would be ruminant and swine operations whose herds or flocks
are affected by the disease, as well as other businesses that sell or
deal with susceptible animal products and byproducts that would have to
be destroyed as part of an eradication program. Our analysis focuses on
livestock producers, while recognizing that similar economic effects
could be expected for other types of establishments eligible for
compensation.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines
for determining which types of firms are to be considered small under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. An establishment engaged in dairy
animal and milk production, cattle ranching and farming, hog and pig
farming, sheep farming, or goat farming is considered small if it has
annual sales of less than $750,000. In 1997, at least 92 percent
(79,155 of 86,022) of dairy farms, 99 percent (651,542 of 656,181) of
cattle farms, 87 percent (40,185 of 46,353) of hog and pig farms, and
99 percent (29,790 of 29,938) of sheep and goat farms were considered
small.
Cattle feedlots are considered small if their annual sales are $1.5
million or less. Over 97 percent of feedlots (95,000 of 97,091) have
capacities of less than 1,000 head, and average annual sales of about
420 head. Assuming each head sold for $1,000, these less-than-1,000
head capacity feedlots would generate, on average, $420,000 in sales.
Clearly, most feedlots and other livestock operations are small
entities.
Benefits for small entities will be the same as those described in
the cost benefit analysis, which are that small entities essentially
will have greater confidence that they will receive full fair market
value when compensated for destroyed animals and materials. This
reassurance will encourage small entities to participate fully in FMD's
eradication. In the end, fewer small entities will be directly affected
because the higher levels of cooperation will reduce the delays in
eradicating FMD.
Small entities that own livestock selected for vaccination as part
of the eradication process will also be more willing to cooperate, with
the knowledge that they will be compensated for the fair market value
of their animals. They will be encouraged to feed and care for the
official vaccinates humanely, confident that these expenses will be
compensated as well.
[[Page 21950]]
Full compensation by the Department for cleaning and disinfection
of affected products and materials, will likewise enhance small
entities' willingness to take part in an FMD eradication campaign.
Even with the changes in the proposed rule are implemented,
affected small entities will still bear uncompensated costs, from lost
income because of downtime, to high restocking prices and market
restrictions. If FMD does occur, small entities can be expected to
benefit directly and indirectly from the of elimination of possible
sources of eradication delay.
In sum, the vast majority of livestock operations are small
entities. While the course an occurrence of FMD would take cannot be
predicted, it is reasonable to expect that small entities would be
among the beneficiaries of the proposed rule directly as compensated
parties and indirectly through rule changes that would lessen the
chances that FMD's eradication will be delayed.
This proposed rule would entail information collection
requirements. These requirements are described in this document under
the heading ``Paperwork Reduction Act.''
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 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will
be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and
(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule would require the submission of claims for
compensation in the event of a future occurrence of FMD. In accordance
with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk
Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your
comments refer to Docket No. 01-069-1. Please send a copy of your
comments to: (1) Docket No. 01-069-1, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room
404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.
Providing affected herd owners and other claimants with appropriate
compensation would entail the use of VS Form 1-23, also known as an
Appraisal and & Indemnity Claim Form. Affected herd owners and other
claimants would also be expected to provide any supporting
documentation that will assist the Administrator, or that is requested
by the Administrator, to verify the quantity and value of animals or
materials destroyed and the costs of their disposition, and the costs
of cleaning and disinfection. We are therefore asking OMB to approve,
for 3 years, our use of this information collection.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Note: Our estimate below shows a minimal burden of 1 hour total
because we believe an FMD outbreak is unlikely. Therefore, we
currently are not collecting information and do not plan to collect
information unless an outbreak does occur. In the event of an FMD
outbreak, we will revise the estimated number of respondents and
estimated burden accordingly at that time based on the number of
expected respondents.
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 1.0 hour per response.
Respondents: Owners of animals and materials destroyed, other
claimants incurring costs under this part for which compensation is
sought, as well as program support personnel including accredited
veterinarians, State animal health employees, and local authorities who
would be providing assistance in the event of a national animal disease
emergency.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 1.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated annual number of responses: 1.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1 hour.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
734-7477.
Appendix--Establishing Fixed Rates
To illustrate how we would establish rates for certain animal
species under a fixed-rate method, as discussed previously in our
proposed changes to Sec. 53.3, we have provided an example based on a
hypothetical outbreak of FMD in early April of 2001. In this example,
we would establish fixed rates for cattle (beef and dairy animals),
swine, and sheep. This group of animals would represent the vast
majority of animals that would be affected by FMD.
Representative ``slide factors'' for calculating the price-weight
adjustment for different animal categories throughout this example were
based on information provided by the LMIC.
The valuation of breeding animals, including the assignment of
certain premiums, is based on our best estimates from available data
and our observations of the livestock market. We realize that
particularly in the case of breeding animals, there is a greater
potential for variations in value within the same category or
classification of animals in comparison to market animals. However, as
discussed previously, owners would have the right to request an
appraisal of their animals if they believed the fixed-rate method would
be unsuitable in their particular situation. In addition, claimants who
disagree with the valuation of their animals under the fixed-rate
method would have the opportunity to submit a written request for
review to the Administrator, explaining why the valuation of their
animals should be different than the value determined by using fixed
rates.
In terms of organization, we first provide a summary of the fixed
rates
[[Page 21951]]
that would be paid in this example based on a hypothetical outbreak of
FMD in early April of 2001. We then provide a more expanded discussion
of how these rates would be determined.
The summary of rates that would be paid for beef and dairy cattle,
swine, and sheep are as follows. Estimated weights used to calculate
the payment per head are noted in parenthesis where applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment
per head
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market animals:
Beef Cattle:
Preweaned calves (500 lb).......................... $496.25
Non-feedlot, but weaned (stocker) animals (650 lb). 601.51
Feedlot animals (1,100 lb)......................... 814.11
Dairy Cattle:
Commercial dairy cows (female dairy cows that 1,320.00
are\have been in milk)............................
Non-bred heifer replacements and sexually immature 924.00
bulls.............................................
Bred heifer replacements........................... 1,584.00
Swine:
Grower-finisher pigs (200 lb)...................... 98.04
Nursery pigs....................................... 51.70
Preweaned piglets.................................. 32.72
Sheep:
Slaughter lambs and wethers raised for wool 99.76
production (130 lb)...............................
Preweaned lambs (70 lb)............................ 57.48
Weaned feeder lambs (85 lb)........................ 69.13
Breeding animals:
Beef Cattle:
Beef cows (commercial herds) (1,000 lb)............ 740.10
Bred replacement heifers (commercial herds)........ 888.12
Beef bulls (commercial herds)...................... 1,850.25
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd,
and donor animals:
Cows and bred replacement heifers.............. 1,850.25
Bulls.......................................... 2,220.30
Dairy Cattle:
Dairy bulls........................................ 3,300.00
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd,
and donor animals:
Cows and bred replacement heifers.............. 3,300.00
Dairy bulls.................................... 3,960.00
Swine:
Sows and boars (commercial herds).................. 196.08
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, 294.12
and donor animals.................................
Sheep:
Commercial ewes (160 lb)........................... 122.78
Commercial rams (200 lb)........................... 153.48
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock flock,
and donor animals:
Ewes........................................... 245.56
Rams........................................... 306.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more expanded discussion of how these rates were determined for
each of the animal categories follows:
Market Animals
Beef Cattle
Preweaned Calves
Estimated weight: 500 lb.
Average futures price (adjusted): 99.25 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $496.25 per head.
We determined the compensation rate for preweaned calves by taking
the simple average of the most recently available daily futures prices
over a
3-month period immediately prior to the date of the disease outbreak,
and multiplying it by the estimated weight. For preweaned calves, we
looked to the feeder cattle futures contract traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange, using the contract month that corresponded to the
month of planned weaning. We used the planned weaning month instead of
the month of the FMD outbreak since the estimated weight would be based
on the average weaning weight for these animals.
We determined that the estimated weight for preweaned calves was
500 lb, which is the average weaning weight according to data from
NAHMS. Since the estimated weight for preweaned calves was less than
the specified weight range of the feeder cattle futures contract (700-
849 lb), we adjusted the average futures price upwards. We calculated
the price-weight adjustment by taking the slide factor determined by
LMIC (in this case $4/cwt), and multiplying this factor by the
difference between the futures contract weight and the estimated weight
(775 lb - 500 lb = 275 lb).
Assuming an early April 2001 disease outbreak and a weaning month
of October, the average futures price was $88.25 per cwt. It is
important to note that per/cwt prices are generally higher for smaller
animals than for larger animals. We then adjusted the average futures
price upwards based on a price-weight adjustment of $11 per cwt. We
calculated the $11 per-cwt adjustment by selecting a slide factor of $4
per cwt and multiplying it by 275 lb. So the average futures price for
determining the compensation rate for preweaned calves was adjusted
upward to $99.25 per cwt ($88.25/cwt + $11/cwt). We then determined the
compensation rate of $496.25 per head by multiplying the adjusted
average futures price of $99.25 per cwt by the estimated weight of 500
lb ($99.25/cwt x 5.0 cwt = $496.25 per head).
[[Page 21952]]
Non-Feedlot, but Weaned (Stocker) Animals
Estimated weight: 650 lb.
Average futures price (adjusted): $92.54 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $601.51 per head.
We determined the compensation rate for stocker animals by taking
the simple average of the most recently available daily futures prices
over a 3-month period immediately prior to the date of the outbreak for
the feeder cattle contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
and by then multiplying the simple average by the estimated weight for
stocker animals. In taking a 3-month average, we used the contract
month that corresponded to the month of the FMD outbreak. Based on an
early April 2001 outbreak, the average futures price was $87.54 per
cwt.
We set an estimated weight of 650 lb for stocker animals based on
the following set of assumptions. The average feedlot placement weight
of stocker animals was 700 lb according to NASS statistics. Since
calves are weaned at 500 lb, this meant a 200 lb non-feedlot gain for
stocker cattle. We took into account a set portion of this non-feedlot
weight gain by adding 150 lb to the weaned weight of 500 lb to arrive
at the estimated total weight of 650 lb for stocker animals.
Since the estimated weight for stocker animals was less than the
specified weight range of the feeder cattle futures contract (700-849
lb), we adjusted the average futures price upwards by $5.00 per cwt by
taking the slide factor determined by LMIC (in this case $4.00/cwt) and
multiplying this factor by the difference between the futures contract
weight and the estimated weight (775 lb - 650 lb = 125 lb or 1.25 cwt).
So the adjusted average futures price equaled $92.54 per cwt ($87.54/
cwt + $5.00/cwt). We then arrived at a compensation weight of $601.51
per head by multiplying the adjusted average futures price of $92.54
per cwt by the estimated weight of 650 lb ($92.54/cwt x 6.50 cwt =
$601.51 per head).
Feedlot Animals
Estimated weight: 1,100 lb.
Average futures price: $74.01 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $814.11 per head.
We determined the compensation rate for feedlot animals by taking
the simple average of the most recently available daily futures prices
over a 3-month period immediately prior to the disease outbreak and
multiplying it by the estimated weight for feedlot animals. We looked
to the live cattle futures contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange, using the contract month that corresponded to the month of
the FMD outbreak.
The estimated weight for feedlot beef cattle was set at 1,100 lb,
based on the following assumptions. The average slaughter weight of
steers and heifers in 1999 and 2000 was 1,262 lb according to NASS
statistics. With an average placement weight in 2000 of 700 lb, we
determined that the average weight gain while in feedlot was 562 lb. We
took into account a set portion of this feedlot weight gain by adding
400 lb to the average placement weight of 700 lb to arrive at the
estimated total weight of 1,100 lb for feedlot cattle. There is no need
for a price-weight adjustment for feedlot beef cattle.
Based on an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the
compensation rate for feedlot beef cattle to be $814.11 per head based
on an average futures price of $74.01 per cwt and an estimated weight
of 1,100 lb ($74.01/cwt x 11.0 cwt = $814.11 per head).
Dairy Cattle
Commercial Dairy Cows (Female Cows That Are In Milk or Have Been in
Milk)
Compensation rate: $1,320 per head.
In its publication Agricultural Prices, NASS reports quarterly
prices received by producers for cows sold for milking purposes in the
top dairy States and a national price average. In theory, a female
dairy cow reaches maximum value when she first starts to produce milk.
The dairy cow price reported by NASS covers animals already in milk
production and thus below their maximum value. Cows ready to be culled
(nearing the end of their last lactation) are greatly discounted as the
value of culled cows is much lower than that of cows that are milked
another lactation. We believe the NASS price reasonably reflects the
value of the milking string. Prices are reported by NASS for the months
of January, April, July, and October and are available at the end of
the following month. January's price would be used if the FMD outbreak
occurred in the months of April, May, or June; April's price would be
used if the outbreak occurred in the months of July, August, or
September; July's price would be used if the outbreak occurred in the
months of October, November, and December; and October's price would be
used if the outbreak occurred in the months of January, February, or
March.
Based on an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the
compensation rate for commercial dairy cows was $1,320 per head. This
rate came from the most recently reported quarterly price per head for
commercial dairy cows from NASS.
Non-Bred Heifer Replacements and Sexually Immature Bulls
Compensation rate: $924 per head.
The rate for non-bred heifer replacements and sexually immature
bulls equals 70 percent of the rate determined for commercial dairy
cows. The lower percentage rate for non-bred replacements and sexually
immature bulls reflects that these are younger animals with lower paid-
in costs. For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the
compensation rate was $924 per head ($1,320 x 70 percent).
Bred Heifer Replacements
Compensation rate: $1,584 per head.
The rate for bred heifer replacements equals 120 percent of the
rate determined for commercial dairy cows. We provide this higher value
over commercial dairy cows to reflect that bred heifers are at the
start of their productive life. For an early April 2001 outbreak, we
determined that the rate bred heifer replacements was $1,584 per head
($1,320 x 120 percent).
Swine
Grower-Finisher Pigs
Estimated weight: 200 lb.
Average futures price (adjusted): $49.02 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $98.04 per head.
We calculated the compensation rate for grower-finisher pigs by
taking the simple average of the most recently available daily futures
prices over a 3-month period immediately prior to the disease outbreak,
and multiplying it by the estimated weight for grower-finisher pigs. We
relied on the lean hogs contract traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange, using the contract month that corresponded to the month of
the FMD outbreak.
We determined that the estimated weight of grower-finisher pigs was
200 lb based on the following assumptions. We assumed that pigs were 50
lb when entering the grower-finisher phase and were slaughtered at 255
lb, which was the average slaughter weight for 1999 and 2000 according
to NASS data (Livestock Slaughter, January 2001). This represented an
average weight gain of 205 lb. We took into account a set portion of
this weight gain by adding 150 lb to the average weight of 50 lb for
pigs entering the grower-finisher phase to arrive at the estimated
total weight of 200 lb for grower-finisher pigs.
It was necessary to adjust the average futures price since the
futures contract
[[Page 21953]]
price is based on the slaughter (carcass) price and not on live
animals. A hog carcass weighs approximately 74 percent of a live hog.
The weight difference represents dressing. We arrived at an adjusted
average futures price of $49.02/cwt, which we then multiplied by the
estimated weight of 200 lb to get a compensation rate of $98.04 per
head ($49.02/cwt x 2.00 cwt).
Nursery Pigs
Compensation rate: $51.70 per head.
We determined the rate for nursery pigs by taking the simple
average of the most recently available national feeder pig (40 lb)
prices reported by AMS. These prices are reported on a weekly basis. We
took the simple average over a 3-month period immediately prior to the
date of the disease outbreak. The AMS prices for these animals are
reported on a per-head basis, so it is not necessary to determine the
compensation weight. The average feeder pig price over this 3-month
period was $51.70 per head.
Preweaned Piglets
Compensation rate: $32.72 per head.
We determined the rate for preweaned piglets by taking the simple
average of the most recently available national early weaned pig (10
lb) prices, as reported by AMS. These prices are reported on a weekly
basis. We took the simple average over a 3-month period immediately
prior to the date of the disease outbreak. The AMS prices for these
animals are also reported on a per-head basis, so it is not necessary
to determine the compensation weight. The average national early weaned
pig price over this 3-month period was $32.72 per head.
Sheep
Slaughter Lambs and Wethers Raised for Wool Production
Estimated weight: 130 lb.
Price: $76.74 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $99.76 per head.
We determined the compensation rate for slaughter lambs by
multiplying the calculated price for slaughter lambs by the estimated
weight for this classification of animal.
We calculated the price for slaughter lambs by taking the simple
average of the most recently available national lamb carcass prices, as
reported by AMS. These prices are reported on a weekly basis. We
normally take the simple average over a 3-month period immediately
prior to the date of the disease outbreak, which we would then multiply
by a dressing percentage of 49.5 percent. However, this is a new AMS
price series, and there was less than 3 months of available price data.
Based on NAHMS data, the average slaughter weight of lambs is 145
lb and the average feedlot placement weight is 85 lb. Therefore, we
determined the average weight gain of lambs during the feedlot or
finishing phase to be 60 lb. We took into account a set portion of this
weight gain by adding 45 lb to the average placement weight of 85 lb to
arrive at the estimated total weight of 130 lb for slaughter lambs. We
then calculated the compensation rate to be $99.76 per head by
multiplying the average AMS lamb carcass price by the dressing
percentage by the compensation weight ($155.03/cwt x 49.5 percent x
1.30 cwt = $99.76 per head). The compensation rate determined for
slaughter lambs would also apply to wethers raised for wool production.
Preweaned Lambs
Estimated weight: 70 lb.
Adjusted price: $82.11 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $57.48 per head.
We determined the compensation rate for preweaned lambs by taking
the price calculated for slaughter lambs ($76.74/cwt) and adding a
price-weight adjustment of 7 percent or $5.37/cwt based on the weight
differential between slaughter lambs and preweaned lambs. We then
multiplied the adjusted price of $82.11/cwt by the assigned estimated
weight of 70 lb, which is the average weaning weight of these animals
according to 2001 NAHMS data, to get a compensation rate of $57.48 per
head (($76.74/cwt + $5.37/cwt) x .70 cwt).
Weaned Feeder Lambs
Estimated weight: 85 lb.
Adjusted price: $81.34 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $69.13 per head.
We used 85 lb as the estimated weight for weaned feeder lambs,
which corresponds to the average weight of lambs entering a feedlot or
finishing stage prior to slaughter. We then calculated the compensation
rate for weaned feeder lambs by taking the price calculated for
slaughter lambs ($76.74/cwt) and adding a price-weight adjustment of 6
percent or $4.60/cwt based on the weight differential between slaughter
lambs and weaned feeder lambs. This price-weight adjustment is
generally positive, except during periods of high feed costs. We then
multiplied the adjusted average price of $81.34/cwt by the assigned
estimated weight of 85 lb for weaned feeder lambs to get a compensation
rate of $69.13 per head (($76.74/cwt + $4.60/cwt) x .85 cwt).
Breeding Animals
Beef Cattle
Beef Cows (Commercial Herds)
Estimated weight: 1,000 lb.
Price: $74.01 per cwt (same price per cwt paid for feedlot beef
cattle).
Compensation rate: $740.10 per head.
The average weight of a beef cow is 1,016 lb according to NAHMS
data (Beef, 1997). Therefore, we used 1,000 lb as the estimated weight
for commercial beef cows. A comparison of fed beef cattle prices and
prices for bred young females and middle age cows (Drovers' Journal)
found that bred cow prices were 83 percent of fed beef cattle prices.
Though the premium for breeding purposes is not readily known, we note
that by providing the same compensation rate ($/cwt) for commercial
breeding beef cows as is used for feedlot beef cattle would provide
some measure of the value given for breeding purposes. Therefore, we
calculated the compensation rate for beef cows by taking the applicable
futures price ($/cwt) calculated for feedlot beef cattle ($74.01/cwt),
and multiplying that average price by the estimated weight of 1,000 lb
for beef cows. For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the
compensation rate for beef cows (commercial herds) was $740.10 per head
($74.01 x 10.0 cwt = $740.01 per head).
Bred Replacement Heifers (Commercial Herds)
Compensation rate: $888.12 per head.
To reflect that bred heifers are at the start of their productive
life, these animals were valued at 120 percent of the compensation rate
for beef cows (commercial herds). For an early April 2001 outbreak, we
determined the rate for bred replacement heifers to be $888.12 per head
($740.10 per head x 120 percent).
Beef Bulls (Commercial Herds)
Compensation rate: $1,850.25 per head.
The rate for beef bulls (commercial herds) equals 250 percent of
the rate established for beef cows (commercial herds). For an early
April 2001 outbreak, we determined that the rate for beef bulls was
$1,850.25 per head ($740.10 x 250 percent).
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals:
Beef Cows and Bred Replacement Heifers
Compensation rate: $1,850.25 per head.
Beef cows and bred replacement heifers that are breeding animals
and are
[[Page 21954]]
also registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals
receive 250 percent of the compensation rate established for beef cows
(commercial herds). For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the
rate was $1,850.25 per head ($740.10 x 250 percent).
Beef Bulls
Compensation rate: $2,220.30 per head.
Beef bulls that are breeding animals and are also registered
animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals receive 300 percent
of the compensation rate established for beef cows (commercial herds).
For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the rate for these
animals was $2,220.30 per head ($740.10 x 300 percent).
Dairy Cattle
Dairy Bulls
Compensation rate: $3,300 per head.
Using the same bull-cow relationship as with beef animals, the rate
for breeding dairy bulls equals 250 percent of the rate determined for
commercial dairy cows. For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined
the rate was $3,300 per head ($1,320 250 percent).
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals:
Dairy Cows and Bred Replacement Heifers
Compensation rate: $3,300 per head.
The rate for dairy cows and bred replacement heifers that are
breeding animals and are also registered animals, part of a seedstock
herd, or donor animals equals 250 percent of the rate established for
commercial dairy cows. For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined
the rate for cows and bred replacement heifers was $3,300 per head
($1,320 x 250 percent).
Dairy Bulls
Compensation rate: $3,960 per head.
The rate for dairy bulls that are breeding animals and are also
registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals equals
300 percent of the rate established for commercial dairy cows. For an
early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the compensation rate for
bulls was $3,960 per head ($1,320 x 300 percent).
Swine
Sows and Boars (Commercial Herds)
Compensation rate: $196.08 per head.
The rate for commercial sows and boars equals 200 percent of the
rate established for grower-finisher pigs. For an early April 2001
outbreak, we determined the rate was $196.08 per head ($98.04 per head
(grower-finisher rate) x 200 percent).
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals:
Compensation rate: $294.12 per head.
The rate for pigs that are breeding animals and are also registered
animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals equals 300 percent
of the rate established for grower-finisher pigs. The value of
seedstock boars would be the same as seedstock sows. For an early April
2001 outbreak, we determined the rate for seedstock sows and boars to
be $294.12 per head ($98.04 per head (grower-finisher rate) x 300
percent).
Sheep
Commercial Ewes
Estimated weight: 160 lb.
Price: $76.74 per cwt (same adjusted price per cwt used for
slaughter lambs).
Compensation rate: $122.78 per head.
In determining the compensation rate for commercial ewes, we would
use the average AMS price ($76.74/cwt) calculated for slaughter lambs,
and multiply this average price by the estimated weight for commercial
ewes. The slaughter lamb price is greater than the cull ewe slaughter
price. By providing the higher slaughter lamb price for breeding ewes
and applying the breeding animal weight, we recognize a premium that
these breeding animals might receive. We also determined the estimated
weight of commercial ewes to be 160 lb. Therefore, for an early April
2001 outbreak, we determined the rate for commercial ewes was $122.78
per head ($76.74/cwt x 160 lb).
Commercial Rams
Estimated weight: 200 lb.
Price: $76.74 per cwt.
Compensation rate: $153.48 per head.
In determining the compensation rate for commercial rams, we would
use the average AMS price ($76.74/cwt) calculated for slaughter lambs,
and multiply this average price by the estimated weight for commercial
rams. The slaughter lamb price is greater than the cull ram slaughter
price. By providing the higher lamb slaughter price for breeding rams
and applying the breeding animal weight, we recognize a premium that
these breeding animals might receive. We also determined the estimated
weight of commercial rams to be 200 lb. Therefore, for an early April
2001 outbreak, we determined the rate for commercial breeding rams was
$153.48 per head ($76.74/cwt x 200 lb).
Registered animals, animals in a seedstock flock, and donor animals:
Compensation rate for breeding ewes: $245.56 per head.
Compensation rate for breeding rams: $306.96 per head.
The rate for ewes or rams that are breeding animals and are also
registered animals, part of a seedstock flock, or donor animals equals
200 percent of the rate established for commercial breeding ewes and
rams. For an early April 2001 outbreak, we determined the rate for ewes
was $245.56 per head ($122.78 per head x 200 percent) and the rate
for rams was $306.96 per head ($153.48 per head x 200 percent).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 53
Animal diseases, Indemnity payments, Livestock, Poultry and poultry
products.
Accordingly, we propose to revise 9 CFR part 53 to read as follows:
PART 53--FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, PLEUROPNEUMONIA, RINDERPEST, AND
CERTAIN OTHER COMMUNICABLE DISEASES OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY
Sec.
53.1 Definitions.
53.2 Disease control and eradication; payments authorized;
determination of disease.
53.3 Payments for animals and materials; other compensation;
request for review.
53.4 Destruction of animals.
53.5 Disinfection or destruction of materials.
53.6 Cleaning and disinfection of animals.
53.7 Presentation of claims.
53.8 Claims not allowed.
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 114, 114a, and 134a-134h; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.4.
Cross Reference: For nonapplicability of part 53 with respect to
certain claims for indemnity, see Secs. 50.15 and 51.10 of this
chapter.
Sec. 53.1 Definitions.
Accredited veterinarian. A veterinarian approved by the
Administrator in accordance with part 161 of this chapter to perform
functions specified in parts 1, 2, 3, and 11 of subchapter A of this
chapter and subchapters B, C, and D of this chapter, and to perform
functions required by cooperative State-Federal disease control and
eradication programs.
Administrator. The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the
Administrator.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
[[Page 21955]]
Animals. Livestock, poultry, and all other members of the animal
kingdom, including birds whether domesticated or wild, but not
including man.
Animals affected by disease. Animals determined to be infected
with, infested with, or exposed to, a disease covered by this part,
including official vaccinates.
APHIS representative. Any individual employed by or acting as an
agent on behalf of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service who
is authorized by the Administrator to perform the services required by
this part.
Bird. Any member of the class aves other than poultry.
Breeding animal. Any animal being raised for the purpose of
producing market animals or other breeding animals and, in the case of
a female, has donated embryos or been bred, and in the case of a male,
is sexually intact and has reached the age of sexual maturity.
Commercial breeding animal. Any breeding animal other than a
registered animal, an animal that is part of a seedstock herd or flock,
or a donor animal.
Department. The United States Department of Agriculture.
Disease. Any communicable disease of livestock or poultry for which
indemnity is not provided elsewhere in this subchapter, and contagious
or infectious animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease,
rinderpest, contagious pleuropneumonia, exotic Newcastle disease,
highly pathogenic avian influenza, and infectious salmon anemia that,
in the opinion of the Secretary, constitute an emergency or an
extraordinary emergency and threaten the livestock or poultry of the
United States.
Disease outbreak. The initial occurrence of the disease, as
determined and reported by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Donor animal. Any animal, other than a registered animal or an
animal that is part of a seedstock herd, that has donated at least two
embryos, in the case of females, or at least 100 units of semen, in the
case of males, for sale to another producer or transfer to a separate
herd or flock.
Endangered or threatened species. Those species defined as
endangered species or threatened species in the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations promulgated thereunder and as
they may be subsequently amended.
Exotic animal. Any animal that is native to a foreign country or of
foreign origin or character, or is not native to the United States.
Exotic Newcastle disease (END). Any velogenic Newcastle disease.
Exotic Newcastle disease is an acute, rapidly spreading, and usually
fatal viral disease of birds and poultry.
Federal veterinarian. A veterinarian employed and authorized by the
Federal Government to perform the services required by this part.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza.
(1) Any influenza virus that kills at least 75 percent of eight 4-
to 6-week-old susceptible chickens within 10 days following intravenous
inoculation with 0.2 ml of a 1:10 dilution of a bacteria-free,
infectious allantoic fluid;
(2) Any H5 or H7 virus that does not meet the criteria in paragraph
(1) of this definition, but has an amino acid sequence at the
hemagglutinin cleavage site that is compatible with highly pathogenic
avian influenza viruses; or
(3) Any influenza virus that is not an H5 or H7 subtype and that
kills one to five chickens in the test described in paragraph (1) of
this definition and grows in cell culture in the absence of trypsin.
ISA Program Veterinarian. The APHIS veterinarian assigned to manage
the infectious salmon anemia program for APHIS in the State of Maine
and who reports to the area veterinarian in charge.
Livestock Marketing Information Center. The organization, funded
cooperatively by the United States Department of Agriculture, State
land grant universities, and livestock industry associations, that
develops, disseminates, and maintains economic and market data relating
to the livestock industry.
Market animal. Any animal being raised for the primary purpose of
slaughter for meat, or, in the case of dairy animals, the production of
milk, or, in the case of certain sheep, the production of wool.
Materials. Barns or other structures; straw, hay, and other feed
and bedding for animals; agricultural products and byproducts;
conveyances; equipment; clothing; and any other article.
National Veterinary Services Laboratories. The organizational unit
within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service delegated
responsibility for providing services for the diagnosis of domestic and
foreign animal diseases, diagnostic support for disease control and
eradication programs, import and export testing of animals, training,
and laboratory certification for selected diseases.
Official vaccinate. Any animal that has been:
(1) Vaccinated with an official vaccine for foot-and-mouth disease
under the supervision of a State or Federal veterinarian;
(2) Identified by an eartag specifically approved by APHIS for
identification of animals officially vaccinated for foot-and-mouth
disease; and
(3) Reported to the Administrator as an official vaccinate for
foot-and-mouth disease promptly after vaccination by the State or
Federal veterinarian supervising the vaccination.
Person. Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, society, joint stock company, or other legal entity.
Poultry. Chickens, ducks, geese, swans, turkeys, pigeons, doves,
pheasants, grouse, partridges, quail, guinea fowl, and pea fowl.
Rare animal. An animal that is extremely uncommon in the United
States and that is neither an exotic animal nor a member of an
endangered or threatened species.
Registered animal. An animal of a particular breed for which
individual records of ancestry are maintained, and for which individual
registration certificates are issued and recorded by a recognized breed
association whose purpose is the improvement of the breed.
Secretary. The Secretary of Agriculture of the United States or any
officer or employee of the Department authorized to act for the
Secretary.
Seedstock herd or flock. In the case of cattle and sheep, a herd or
flock in which, during the previous 5 years, at least 25 percent of the
animals born to the herd or flock have, for breeding purposes, been
sold to another producer or transferred to a separate herd or flock,
or, in the case of swine, a herd in which at least 50 percent of the
gilts produced have, for breeding purposes, been sold to another
producer or transferred to a separate herd.
State. Each of the States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any other territory or possession of
the United States.
State representative. An individual employed by a State or a
political subdivision to perform the specified functions agreed to by
the Department and the State.
State veterinarian. A veterinarian employed and authorized by a
State or its political subdivision to perform the services required by
this part.
Sec. 53.2 Disease control and eradication; payments authorized;
determination of disease.
(a) Disease control and eradication. (1) The Administrator may
cooperate
[[Page 21956]]
with States, political subdivisions, farmers' associations and similar
organizations, and individuals to control and eradicate disease. Upon
agreement of the States, political subdivisions, farmers' associations
and similar organizations, or individuals to cooperate with the
Administrator in the control and eradication of disease, the
Administrator may pay, subject to the availability of funding, the
costs of activities listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii)
of this section, as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4)
of this section:
(i) Purchase, destruction, and disposition of animals affected by
disease;
(ii) Purchase, destruction, and disposition of materials
contaminated by or exposed to a disease agent when the cost of cleaning
and disinfection would exceed the value of the materials or cleaning
and disinfection would be impracticable; and
(iii) Cleaning and disinfection of materials that are contaminated
by or exposed to a disease agent.
(2) The Administrator is authorized to pay 50 percent of the costs
under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section; except that
for infectious salmon anemia the Administrator may pay up to 60 percent
of the costs under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section;
and except that for exotic Newcastle disease or highly pathogenic avian
influenza, or any other case where the animals were affected by a
disease prior to or during interstate movement and are not eligible to
receive indemnity from any State, the Administrator may pay up to 100
percent of the costs under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this
section; and except that for foot-and-mouth disease, the Administrator
will pay 100 percent of the costs under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and
(a)(1)(ii) of this section: Provided, however, That when the Secretary
determines an extraordinary emergency exists, the Administrator will
pay 100 percent of the costs (i.e., the fair market value) under
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this section, subject to the
availability of funding: Provided, further, That any compensation paid
will not exceed the difference between the compensation received from a
State or other source and the fair market value of the animals or
materials.
(3) Costs incurred under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section will
be shared by the Department and the State as agreed to by the
Department and the State in which the work is done: Provided, however,
That in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, the Administrator will pay
100 percent of the fair and reasonable costs incurred under paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(4) A cooperative program for the purchase, destruction, and
disposition of birds will be limited to birds determined by the
Administrator to constitute a threat to the poultry industry of the
United States.
(b) Determination of disease.
(1) The determination that animals are affected by disease will be
made by either a Federal veterinarian or a State veterinarian who has
completed the APHIS course on foreign animal disease diagnosis.\1\ The
determination that animals are affected by disease will be based on
such factors as clinical evidence of the disease (signs, necropsy
lesions, and history of the occurrence of the disease), diagnostic
tests for the disease based on National Veterinary Services
Laboratories-approved protocols,\2\ or epidemiological evidence
(evaluation of clinical evidence and the degree of risk posed by the
potential spread of the disease based on the virulence of the disease,
its known means of transmission, and the particular species involved).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The locations of qualified Federal veterinarians and State
veterinarians may be obtained by writing to Emergency Programs,
Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
USDA, 4700 River Road, Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, or by
referring to the local telephone book.
\2\ A copy of the protocols for diagnostic tests of diseases
covered by this part may be obtained by writing to Emergency
Programs, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The determination that materials are contaminated by or exposed
to a disease agent shall be made by an APHIS representative or a State
representative, based on the guidance of a Federal veterinarian or a
State veterinarian.
Sec. 53.3 Payments for animals and materials; other compensation;
request for review.
(a) Valuation of animals. The value of animals affected by disease
and subject to destruction will be the fair market value based on an
appraisal of the animals: Provided, that, In the case of foot-and-mouth
disease only, if the Administrator determines that appraisal of animals
affected by disease would be impracticable, or would otherwise
compromise efforts to effectively control and eradicate the disease,
the Administrator may determine the fair market value of certain
animals by a fixed-rate method, as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(1) Appraisal. Appraisals will be conducted jointly by an APHIS
representative and a State representative, or, if the State authorities
approve, by an APHIS representative alone. Animals may be appraised in
groups provided they are the same species and type and provided that,
where appraisal is by the head, each animal in the group is the same
value per head, or where appraisal is by the pound, each animal in the
group is the same value per pound.
(2) Fixed-rate method. The Administrator will establish rates based
on the value per head for cattle (beef and dairy cattle), swine, and
sheep as provided in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iii) of this
section. Rates may be established for other animals for which the
Administrator finds sufficient information publicly available to make a
calculation of the animal's fair market value in accordance with the
procedures provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(i) Classification.
(A) Animals within each species will be classified as market
animals or breeding animals.
(B) Market animals will be further classified according to their
production phase, including whether or not the animals are weaned and
whether or not the animals are on finishing rations (i.e., at a feedlot
or finishing barn) as follows:
(1) Beef cattle. Preweaned calves; non-feedlot, but weaned
(stocker) animals; and feedlot animals.
(2) Dairy cattle. Commercial dairy cows (female dairy cows that
are/have been in milk), non-bred heifer replacements and sexually
immature bulls, and bred heifer replacements.
(3) Swine. Grower-finisher pigs, nursery pigs, and preweaned
piglets.
(4) Sheep. Preweaned lambs, weaned feeder lambs, slaughter lambs,
and wethers raised for wool production.
(C) Breeding animals will be further classified based on whether
they are commercial breeding animals, or are registered animals, part
of a seedstock herd or flock, or donor animals as follows:
(1) Beef cattle. Beef cows (commercial herds); bred replacement
heifers (commercial herds); beef bulls (commercial herds); and
registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals.
(2) Dairy cattle. Dairy bulls; and registered animals, animals in a
seedstock herd, and donor animals.
(3) Swine. Sows and boars (commercial herds); and registered
animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor animals.
(4) Sheep. Ewes and rams (commercial flocks); and registered
[[Page 21957]]
animals, animals in a seedstock flock, and donor animals.
(ii) Rates for market animals.--(A) Beef cattle. The rates
established for different classifications of beef cattle will be based
on prices from applicable futures contracts traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange. The rates for preweaned calves and stocker animals
will be based on the feeder cattle futures contract. The rate for
feedlot animals will be based on the live cattle futures contract. The
rate will be determined by multiplying the applicable futures price ($/
cwt) by the estimated weight set by APHIS for that classification of
animal.
(1) The applicable futures price ($/cwt) will be the simple average
of the most recently available daily futures prices over a 3-month
period immediately prior to the date of the disease outbreak using the
futures contract month that corresponds to the month of the disease
outbreak, or the next succeeding contract month if there is not an
applicable futures contract for the month that corresponds to the month
of the disease outbreak: Provided, however, In the case of preweaned
beef calves, the applicable futures price will be the simple average of
the most recently available daily futures prices for that animal over a
3-month period using the futures contract month that corresponds to the
month the claimant has historically weaned their calves, or the next
succeeding contract month if there is not an applicable futures
contract for the month that corresponds to the month of planned
weaning.
(2) The estimated weight set by APHIS for different classifications
of beef cattle will be the average weight of animals in that production
phase based on the most recently available information from the
Department's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and
National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS).
(3) If the estimated weight for a particular classification of
animal does not fall within the weight range of the animal covered by
the futures contract, an upward or downward adjustment in the average
futures price will be made to reflect this difference in weight and to
account for the fact that the price per cwt varies with the total
weight of the animal. The adjustment will be calculated by multiplying
the price-weight adjustment factor, as determined by the Livestock
Marketing Information Center, by the difference between the average
weight of the animal covered by the futures contract and the estimated
weight set by APHIS for that classification of animal.
(B) Dairy cattle. The rate established for commercial dairy cows
will be based on the most recent quarterly price per head reported by
NASS. The rate for non-bred heifer replacements and sexually immature
bulls will be 70 percent of the rate determined for commercial dairy
cows. The rate for bred heifer replacements will be 120 percent of the
rate determined for commercial dairy cows.
(C) Swine.--(1) Grower-finisher pigs. The rate established for
grower-finisher pigs will be based on the lean hogs futures contract
traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The rate will be determined
by multiplying the applicable futures price ($/cwt) by the estimated
weight set by APHIS for grower-finisher pigs.
(i) The applicable futures price ($/cwt) for grower-finisher pigs
will be the simple average of the most recently available daily futures
prices over a 3-month period immediately prior to the date of the
disease outbreak using the futures contract month that corresponds to
the month of the disease outbreak, or the next succeeding contract
month if there is not an applicable futures contract for the month that
corresponds to the month of the disease outbreak, multiplied by 74
percent.
(ii) The estimated weight set by APHIS for grower-finisher pigs
will be the average weight of grower-finisher pigs based on the most
recently available information from NASS and NAHMS.
(2) Nursery pigs. The rate established for nursery pigs will be
based on the simple average of the most recently available national
feeder pig (40 lb) prices reported by the Department's Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) over a 3-month period immediately prior to the
date of the disease outbreak.
(3) Preweaned piglets. The rate established for preweaned piglets
will be based on the simple average of the most recently available
national early weaned pig (10 lb) prices reported by AMS over a 3-month
period immediately prior to the date of the disease outbreak.
(D) Sheep. The rate established for preweaned lambs, weaned feeder
lambs, slaughter lambs, and wethers raised for wool production will be
based on the national lamb carcass price, as reported by AMS. The rate
will be determined by multiplying the average AMS price ($/cwt) by the
estimated weight set by APHIS for that classification of animal.
(1) The average AMS price ($/cwt) will be the simple average of the
most recently available national lamb carcass prices reported by AMS
over a 3-month period immediately prior to the date of the disease
outbreak, multiplied by the AMS reported dressing percentage, or 49.5
percent if the dressing percentage is not reported.
(2) The estimated weight set by APHIS for preweaned lambs, weaned
feeder lambs, slaughter lambs, and wethers raised for wool production
will be the average weight of animals in that production phase based on
the most recently available information from NASS and NAHMS.
(3) For preweaned lambs and weaned feeder lambs, an upward or
downward percentage adjustment in the average AMS price will be made to
reflect the difference in weight between preweaned lambs or weaned
feeder lambs and slaughter lambs. The price-weight percentage
adjustment will be supplied by the Livestock Marketing Information
Center.
(iii) Rates for breeding animals.--(A) Generally. The rates for
breeding animals will be determined based on the rates of other market
or breeding animals, and then adjusted to include any premium that
reflects the animals' breeding value. Breeding animals that are
registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd or flock, or animals
that have donated germ plasm that has been sold to other producers or
transferred to separate herds or flocks, will receive a higher premium
than commercial breeding animals.
(B) Beef cattle.--(1) Beef cows (commercial herds). (i) The rate
established for beef cows (commercial herds) that are breeding animals
will be determined by multiplying the applicable futures price ($/cwt)
for feedlot animals, as described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this
section, by the estimated weight set by APHIS for beef cows.
(ii) The estimated weight set by APHIS for beef cows will be the
average weight of beef cows based on the most recently available
information from NASS and NAHMS.
(2) Bred replacement heifers (commercial herds). The rate
established for bred replacement heifers (commercial herds) that are
breeding animals will be 120 percent of the rate established for beef
cows (commercial herds).
(3) Beef bulls (commercial herds). The rate established for beef
bulls (commercial herds) that are breeding animals will be 250 percent
of the rate established for beef cows (commercial herds).
(4) Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor
animals.-- (i) The rate established for beef cows and bred replacement
heifers that are breeding animals and are registered
[[Page 21958]]
animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals, will be 250
percent of the rate established for beef cows (commercial herds).
(ii) The rate established for beef bulls that are breeding animals
and are registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals,
will be 300 percent of the rate established for beef cows (commercial
herds).
(C) Dairy cattle.--(1) Dairy bulls. The rate established for dairy
bulls that are breeding animals will be 250 percent of the rate
established for commercial dairy cows.
(2) Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor
animals.
(i) The rate established for dairy cows and bred replacement
heifers that are breeding animals and are registered animals, part of a
seedstock herd, or donor animals, will be 250 percent of the rate
established for commercial dairy cows.
(ii) The rate established for dairy bulls that are breeding animals
and are registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals,
will be 300 percent of the rate established for commercial dairy cows.
(D) Swine.--(1) Sows and boars (commercial herds). The rate
established for commercial sows and boars that are breeding animals
will be 200 percent of the rate established for grower-finisher pigs.
(2) Registered animals, animals in a seedstock herd, and donor
animals.
(i) The rate established for sows that are breeding animals and are
registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals, will be
300 percent of the rate established for grower-finisher pigs.
(ii) The rate established for boars that are breeding animals and
are registered animals, part of a seedstock herd, or donor animals,
will be 300 percent of the rate established for grower-finisher pigs.
(E) Sheep.--(1) Ewes and rams (commercial flocks).
(i) The rate established for commercial ewes and rams that are
breeding animals will be determined by multiplying the average AMS
price ($/cwt) for slaughter lambs, as described in paragraph
(a)(2)(ii)(D)(1) of this section, by the estimated weight set by APHIS
for commercial ewes and rams.
(ii) The estimated weight set by APHIS for commercial ewes and rams
will be the average weight of those animals based on the most recently
available information from NASS and NAHMS.
(2) Registered animals, animals in a seedstock flock, and donor
animals.
(i) The rate established for ewes that are breeding animals and are
registered animals, part of a seedstock flock, or donor animals, will
be 200 percent of the rate established for commercial breeding ewes.
(ii) The rate established for rams that are breeding animals and
are registered animals, part of a seedstock flock, or donor animals,
will be 200 percent of the rate established for commercial breeding
rams.
(iv) Request for appraisal. An owner of animals subject to
valuation by the fixed-rate method may submit a written request to the
Administrator asking that the animals affected by disease be valued by
appraisal instead of by fixed-rate method. The owner must include in
the request the reasons why valuation by the fixed-rate method would be
unsuitable. In determining whether to grant the request, the
Administrator will take into account whether allowing the appraisal
would compromise efforts to effectively control and eradicate the
disease. The decision by the Administrator regarding the owner's
request for appraisal is final. A denial of a request for appraisal
under this paragraph does not affect the owner's right to request a
review of the valuation under paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Valuation of materials. The value of materials destroyed
because of contamination or exposure to a disease agent will be the
material's fair market value based on an appraisal: Provided, that, In
the case of foot-and-mouth disease only, if an appraisal is found to be
impracticable, or would otherwise compromise efforts to effectively
control and eradicate the disease, the Administrator may authorize the
value to be determined by other means, such as through records or other
documentation maintained by the claimant indicating the value of the
materials destroyed. The appraisal of materials will be conducted
jointly by an APHIS representative and a State representative, or, if
the State authorities approve, by an APHIS representative alone.
(c) Other compensation.--(1) Costs for cleaning and disinfection.
Compensation for cleaning and disinfection will be based on receipts or
other documentation maintained by the claimant verifying expenditures
for cleaning and disinfection activities authorized by this part.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) Request for review. A claimant who disagrees with the valuation
in total of all animals or all materials or the amount of other
compensation, as determined in this section, may submit a written
request for review to the Administrator. The claimant must include in
the request the reasons, including any supporting documentation, that
the valuation in total of all animals or all materials or the amount of
other compensation should be different from the valuation or amount
determined by appraisal, fixed-rate method, or other means provided for
in this section. The decision by the Administrator regarding the
valuation of animals or materials or the amount of other compensation
is final.
Sec. 53.4 Destruction of animals.
(a) With the exception of official vaccinates, animals affected by
disease must be destroyed promptly after valuation and disposed of by
burial, burning, or other manner approved by the Administrator as not
contributing to the spread of the disease.
(b) The destruction of animals and the burial, burning, or other
disposal of carcasses of animals under this part must be under the
supervision of an APHIS representative or a State representative who
will prepare and transmit to the Administrator a report identifying the
animals destroyed and the manner of their disposition.
(c) Official vaccinates will be destroyed or otherwise handled in a
manner as directed by the Administrator to prevent the dissemination of
the disease. Official vaccinates not subject to destruction may
include, at the discretion of the Administrator, exotic animals, rare
animals, or animals belonging to an endangered or threatened species.
If official vaccinates are allowed to move to a slaughtering or
rendering facility in lieu of destruction or disposition by other
means, then any proceeds gained from the sale of the animals to the
slaughtering or rendering facility will be subtracted from any
indemnity payment from APHIS for which the producer is eligible under
Sec. 53.2(a)(2) of this part.
(d) In the case of animals depopulated due to infectious salmon
anemia, salvageable fish may be sold for rendering, processing, or any
other purpose approved by the Administrator. If fish retail salvage
value, the proceeds gained from the sale of the fish will be subtracted
from any indemnity payment from APHIS for which the producer is
eligible under Sec. 53.2(a)(2).
Sec. 53.5 Disinfection or destruction of materials.
All materials that have been contaminated by or exposed to a
disease agent must be cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of
an APHIS representative or a State representative: Provided, however,
That in cases in
[[Page 21959]]
which the cost of cleaning and disinfecting materials would exceed the
materials' value or cleaning and disinfecting the materials would be
impracticable, the materials shall be destroyed under the supervision
of an APHIS representative or a State representative, upon
determination of their value as provided in Sec. 53.3. The APHIS
representative or State representative will prepare and transmit to the
Administrator a report identifying all materials destroyed and the
manner of their disposition.
Sec. 53.6 Cleaning and disinfection of animals.
Animals of species not susceptible to the disease for which a
quarantine has been established, but which have been exposed to the
disease, must be cleaned and disinfected, as directed by, and under the
supervision of, an APHIS representative or a State representative.
Sec. 53.7 Presentation of claims.
(a) Claims for compensation under this part must each be presented
by the claimant to an APHIS representative on forms approved by APHIS.
Claims for animals or materials destroyed must be presented by the
owner or the owner's designated representative. The claimant shall
provide any available supporting documents that will assist the
Administrator, or that are requested by the Administrator, in verifying
the quantity and value of animals or materials destroyed and the costs
of their disposition, the costs of cleaning and disinfection, and any
other costs incurred under this part for which compensation is sought.
Examples of supporting documentation include, but are not limited to
production records, purchase and sales records, breeding records,
registration papers, and receipts.
(b) When animals or materials have been destroyed pursuant to this
part, the owner of the animals or materials must certify on the claim
whether or not the applicable animals or materials are subject to any
mortgage. If there is a mortgage, the owner and each person holding a
mortgage on the animals or materials must sign forms approved by APHIS
indicating they consent to the payment of any indemnity to the person
specified on the forms.
Sec. 53.8 Claims not allowed.
(a) The Department will not allow claims arising under this part if
the payee has not complied with all Federal quarantine requirements or
State quarantine requirements consistent with Federal law or
regulations in effect for the control and eradication of the disease.
(b) Costs for the care and feeding of animals held for destruction
will not be paid by the Department, unless the payment of such cost is
specifically authorized or approved by the Administrator.
(c) The Department will not allow claims arising out of the
destruction of animals or materials unless the animals or materials
have been valued as prescribed in this part.
(d) The Department will not allow claims arising out of the
destruction of animals or materials that have been moved or handled by
the owner, or by the owner's representative acting on behalf of the
owner, in violation of any Federal law or regulation, or any State law
or regulation consistent with a Federal law or regulation, administered
to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any contagious or
infectious animal disease or any communicable livestock or poultry
disease for which the animal or material was destroyed.
(e) The Department will not allow claims arising out of the
destruction of fish due to infectious salmon anemia (ISA) unless the
claimants have agreed in writing to participate fully in the
cooperative ISA control program administered by APHIS and the State of
Maine.
Participants in the ISA control program must:
(1) Establish and maintain a veterinary client-patient relationship
with an APHIS accredited veterinarian and inform the ISA Program
Veterinarian in writing of the name of their accredited veterinarian at
the time the participant enrolls in the ISA program and within 15 days
of any change in accredited veterinarians.
(2) Cooperate with and assist in periodic on-site disease
surveillance, testing, and reporting activities for ISA, which will be
conducted by their APHIS accredited veterinarian or a State or Federal
official as directed by the ISA Program Veterinarian.
(3) Develop and implement biosecurity protocols for use at all
participant-leased finfish sites and participant-operated vessels
engaged in aquaculture operations throughout Maine. A copy of these
protocols shall be submitted to the ISA Program Veterinarian at the
time the participant enrolls in the ISA program and within 15 days of
any change in the protocols.
(4) Develop, with the involvement of the participant's accredited
veterinarian and the fish site health manager, a site-specific ISA
action plan for the control and management of ISA. A copy of the action
plan shall be submitted to APHIS for review at the time the participant
enrolls in the ISA program and within 15 days of any change in the
action plan.
(5) Participate in the State of Maine's integrated pest management
(IPM) program for the control of sea lice on salmonids. A copy of the
management plan developed by the participant for the State IPM program
shall be submitted to APHIS for review at the time the participant
enrolls in the ISA program and within 15 days of any change in the
management plan.
(6) Submit to the ISA Program Veterinarian at the time the
participant enrolls in the ISA program a complete and current fish
inventory information for each participant-leased finfish site with
site and cage identifiers. Fish inventory information must include the
numbers, age, date of saltwater transfer, vaccination status, and
previous therapeutant history for all fish in each participant-leased
finfish site.
(7) Maintain, and make available to the ISA Program Veterinarian
upon request, mortality data for each participant-leased finfish site
and pen in production.
(8) Cooperate with and assist APHIS in the completion of
biosecurity audits at all participant-leased finfish sites and
participant-operated vessels involved in salmonid aquaculture.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0192)
Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of April 2002.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 02-10724 Filed 4-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 2002/05/01 EST