[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39301-39307]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-1]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 39301]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80
[Docket No. 04-052-2]
RIN 0579-AC48
Livestock Identification; Use of Alternative Numbering Systems
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with several changes, an
interim rule that, among other things, amended the regulations to allow
for the use of additional numbering systems for purposes of animal and
premises identification. As amended by this document, the rule
recognizes additional numbering systems for the identification of
animals in interstate commerce and State/Tribe/Federal/industry
cooperative disease control and eradication programs. Additionally, the
rule amends the regulations to authorize the use of a numbering system
to identify premises where animals are managed or held. These
regulatory changes are necessary to allow the use, for official
purposes, of the new numbering systems in the National Animal
Identification System. Use of the new numbering systems is not required
by this final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, NAIS
Coordinator, Surveillance and Identification Programs, National Center
for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5571.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register
on November 8, 2004 (69 FR 64644-64651, Docket No. 04-052-1), we
amended the regulations to recognize additional numbering systems for
the identification of animals in interstate commerce and State/Federal/
industry cooperative disease control and eradication programs.
Additionally, the interim rule amended the regulations to authorize the
use of a numbering system to identify premises where animals are
managed or held. Specifically, the interim rule recognized the animal
identification number (AIN) for the identification of individual
animals, the group/lot identification number (GIN) for the
identification of groups or lots of animals, and the premises
identification number (PIN) for the identification of premises. These
new numbering systems are key elements in the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS). The changes we made to the regulations in
the interim rule were necessary to allow the use of these new numbering
systems for official purposes in disease control and eradication
programs. The interim rule did not require use of the new numbering
systems, however. Finally, the interim rule amended the regulations to
prohibit the removal of official identification devices and to
eliminate potential regulatory obstacles to the recognition of emerging
technologies that could offer viable alternatives to existing animal
identification devices and methods.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or
before January 7, 2005. We received 16 comments by that date. They were
from beef, cattle, sheep, goat, and poultry producers; producers
associations; and State governments. The comments are discussed below.
There were several comments pertaining to our definition of the
AIN. Issues discussed included the need for a nationally unique AIN,
the recognition of different types of AINs, a possible alternative to
the AIN, and the need for having a sunset date for other types of
identification numbers so that the AIN will be in effect nationally.
One commenter stated that the definition of the AIN contained in
our November 2004 interim rule does not require that the number be
``nationally unique'' or indicate that there is a need to avoid
duplication with existing numbers. It would be useful, according to
this commenter, to include this requirement in the definition of AIN so
that the rule is clear and specific throughout.
We agree with this comment and are changing the definition
accordingly. Since the NAIS is a national system, it is important that
each AIN be nationally unique and that duplication be avoided. This
final rule amends the definition of animal identification number (AIN)
to read as follows: ``A numbering system for the official
identification of individual animals in the United States providing a
nationally unique identification number for each animal. The AIN
contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840 for
the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric code
assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording.''
The same commenter, noting that the interim rule recognized three
types of AINs (those beginning with an ``840'' country code, with the
alpha characters ``USA'', and with a numeric code assigned to the
manufacturer of the device), stated that it was appropriate to identify
the three types of numbers as ``official numbering systems'' and that
the latter two forms should be referred to using alternative
terminology, e.g., ``American ID'' for the ``USA'' number, in order to
prevent confusion. The commenter expressed the concern that only the
``840'' number will be recognized in the NAIS.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this
comment. Because a uniform animal identification numbering system is
needed to make the NAIS successful, we do intend that, in the future,
only the ``840'' AIN will be recognized for official use, to the extent
practical. The interim rule recognized the ``USA'' and manufacturer's
code numbers in order to avoid placing an excessive burden on producers
who were already using those numbering systems for identifying their
animals. We view these numbering systems as transitional, however, and
anticipate phasing them out as we progress toward full implementation
of the NAIS. Additional information about this phasing-out process and
timelines for the transition to APHIS' recognition of only the ``840''
AIN for official use
[[Page 39302]]
will be provided in future rulemaking or other documents.
Another commenter recommended that we adopt a ``universal animal
identification number (UAIN)'' in place of our AIN. While the UAIN
could have the same format as the AIN, the former would be a permanent
and unique database number for a single animal and would be linked with
all physical device identifiers associated with the animal, including
radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs), visual tags, retinal
scans, DNA, brands, and unlimited alternate identifiers. The commenter
stated that the UAIN could be used at the producer's option as the RFID
number, or another ISO-compliant number could be used as an
alternative. According to the commenter, the UAIN alternative would
make it possible for both currently accepted and new identification
technologies to be easily adopted without having to reengineer the
official database over time. The UAIN would also allow easy retagging
or reidentification, as retagging would link a new physical identifier
to the original UAIN. There would be only one UAIN linked with one
animal.
We are not making any changes in response to this comment. In the
NAIS, the AIN will provide the same capabilities as would the
commenter's recommended UAIN. The initial AIN assigned to an animal
will be its lifetime number. Additionally, there is merit in having the
animal's AIN attached to the animal for visual collection and
subsequent recording for routine animal health tests, as well as health
certificates. When a tag is lost and it is necessary to assign a new
AIN to an animal, the pertinent NAIS databases will cross-reference the
replacement AIN with the animal's original AIN. It is acknowledged that
in some cases, the animal's original AIN may not be known, and thus
cross-referencing of the two AINs will not be possible.
Another commenter suggested that, as soon as possible, a reasonable
sunset date for identification numbers other than the ``840'' AIN
should be established and communicated to industry. The commenter
stated that the goal of the AIN implementation period should be to
minimize labor for producers whose livestock are already identified and
to increase the number of animals that can be easily recorded in the
system, while at the same time transitioning all livestock to be
identified using one uniform, standardized, and technology-neutral
numbering system for the NAIS.
While we are not making any changes to the final rule as the result
of this comment, which is beyond the scope of the present rulemaking,
we do agree with the commenter. As noted above, we view the ``USA'' and
manufacturer's code AINs as transitional and intend to phase them out
as we progress toward full implementation of the NAIS, leaving the
``840'' AIN as the only one recognized for official use, to the extent
practical. A date will be set for the sunset of the ``USA'' and
manufacturer's code numbers, and advance notice will be provided to
ensure a smooth transition to the ``840'' number for official use in
disease control and eradication programs.
A commenter suggested that the definition of group/lot
identification number (GIN) should be amended in the final rule to
state that each animal reported in a group movement be required to have
an individual animal group identification tag and that the number of
head being moved in each group should be reported to the official
database. In the absence of these requirements, according to the
commenter, one has no way to prove that the animals were part of the
group being moved once they are intentionally or accidentally
commingled at a premises.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this
comment. Requiring an identification tag for each individual animal in
a group would defeat the purpose and utility of group/lot
identification. The intent behind the GIN is that the group of animals
is referenced by a unique number so that each individual animal does
not need to be tagged.
We did determine, however, that we needed to change the format of
the GIN slightly. The November 2004 interim rule defined the GIN as
consisting of a seven-character PIN and a six-digit representation of
the date on which the group or lot of animals was assembled. That
format made no provision for situations where more than one group of
animals may be moved from a premises on the same day. Several of the
species working groups that are working with APHIS on the NAIS--the
sheep industry in particular--believed that the format needed to be
revised in order to allow for the assignment of multiple GINs to
multiple groups of animals moving from a premises on a single day.
Therefore, the GIN has been revised by adding two digits. These two
additional digits will provide for the identification of up to 99
groups/lots of animals moving from a premises on the same day. In this
final rule, we are amending the definition of the GIN to reflect this
change in format.
Other commenters discussed issues pertaining to the PIN. Concerns
expressed by these commenters included the need for a nationally unique
PIN, potential ambiguity about who will assign PINs, and the PIN
format.
The same commenter who stated that we needed to specify that the
AIN would be a ``nationally unique'' number offered a similar comment
about the PIN. Noting that the definition contained in the November
2004 interim rule states that the PIN is a ``unique number,'' the
commenter argued that the final rule should state that the PIN is a
``nationally unique number.''
We agree with this comment as well. As with the AIN, it is
important to avoid duplication with the PIN. We are amending the
definition of premises identification number (PIN) in this final rule
to indicate that it is a nationally unique number.
We are also making some additional modifications to the definition
of premises identification number (PIN) in this final rule for the sake
of comprehensiveness, clarity, and flexibility. While the definition in
the interim rule refers to PINs being assigned by State or Federal
animal health authorities, the definition in this final rule provides
for Tribal authorities to do so as well. Secondly, whereas the PIN is
currently defined, in part, as a nationally unique number representing
a geographically distinct location from other livestock production
units, the definition in this final rule refers to a geographically
distinct location from other premises. This change, complemented by a
new definition of premises as a location where livestock or poultry are
held or kept that we are adding to Sec. 71.1, makes the definition of
the PIN more inclusive than the one in the interim rule. Finally, the
definition of the PIN in the interim rule also stated, among other
things, that the number is associated with an address or legal land
description. In this final rule, the definition indicates that the PIN
is associated with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other
location descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The
new definition provides greater flexibility by allowing for additional
means of determining specific locations that will be associated with
PINs.
The same commenter also expressed concern about the potential for
confusion regarding who assigns PINs to premises. The commenter noted
that the interim rule indicated that the PIN can be assigned by a State
or Federal animal health official and that the assignment of the number
is based on the judgment of either the State or Federal animal health
official that the premises is a geographically distinct location from
[[Page 39303]]
other livestock production units. According to the commenter, this
provision appears to open up possibilities for jurisdictional conflict
and could result in producers receiving conflicting information. The
commenter argued that the PINs should be assigned to premises by the
authorized animal health official, who, in most cases, would be the
designated State animal health official.
We are not making any changes to the final rule as a result of this
comment. While it is a State or Tribe's responsibility to maintain the
system to register premises within its geographic area and to be the
direct contact for producers registering their premises, the NAIS, as a
State-Tribal-Federal cooperative program, necessitates cooperative
efforts for the interpretation of premises definitions to ensure
consistent interpretation nationwide. The definition of premises
identification number (PIN) contained in the interim rule reflected the
cooperative nature of this enterprise, a point we are further
reinforcing by adding the reference to Tribal authorities to the
definition in the final rule.
Another commenter expressed some concerns about the format of the
PIN, as defined in our November 2004 interim rule. The interim rule
recognized a new PIN format for official use: A seven-character
alphanumeric code, with the right-most character being a check digit.
This commenter suggested that adding an alphanumeric checksum character
to a six-character code could increase the number of transcription
errors because a seventh character could exceed the normal range of
short-term memory. The commenter's preferred solution would have the
numbers of digits in PINs vary according to the primary function of a
particular premises. Commercial poultry producers' premises would have
five-digit PINs assigned to them. There would be six-digit PINs
assigned to swine producers, seven-digit PINs to beef producers, eight-
digit PINs to dairy producers, and nine-digit PINs to other producers.
Such a system, according to the commenter, would reserve the shorter
PINs for those sections of agriculture that will be the primary users
of the numbering system, support the implementation of species-specific
identification tags, make tattoos easier to read, decrease
transcription errors, and allow for the recording of numbers into
electronic ID systems.
We do not support this recommendation. The PIN is intended to
identify a geographical location where livestock or poultry are managed
or held rather than the species present at the premises. The
agricultural activity at a given premises may change over time due to
changes in ownership or other factors. The PIN, as defined in the
rulemaking, allows for that possibility. Under the commenter's
proposal, on the other hand, a change in the primary species produced
at a premises would necessarily result in that premises having to be
assigned a new PIN.
One commenter asserted that while the definition of official eartag
contained in the interim rule indicated that the official eartag must
``provide unique identification for individual animals,'' it did not
specify how this was to be done.
We do not agree with this comment. The definition of official
eartag in the interim rule specified numbering systems that may be used
on the eartags for the identification of individual animals in the
NAIS.
The same commenter also argued that while the official eartag
requirements seem appropriate for the future, they may not be entirely
so at present. The definition of official eartag provided in the
interim rule stated that an official eartag must bear the U.S. shield.
As the commenter pointed out, many animals currently carry tags that
meet all the interim rule's requirements for an official eartag with
the exception of having the U.S. shield printed on the tag. In
addition, many such tags have been manufactured and are ready to be
used in cooperative agreements to begin the implementation of the NAIS.
By requiring animals carrying these tags, with verifiably unique
numbers, to be retagged in order for their eartags to be recognized as
official, APHIS would place a significant burden on producers and delay
implementation of the program, according to the commenter. The
implementation of the NAIS would be facilitated and industry would
benefit if the requirement for printing the U.S. shield on official
eartags were set at some future specific date and if tags currently in
use that meet all other criteria continue to be recognized as official
eartags until that date.
We recognize that we would be placing a significant burden on
producers if we required them to retag their animals in order that the
eartags used meet the U.S. shield requirement. Therefore, we are going
to allow producers employing the transitional ``USA'' and
manufacturer's code numbers, as well as PIN-based numbers, to continue
to use eartags that meet all the other specifications but do not have
the U.S. shield imprinted upon them. In this final rule, we have
amended the definition of official eartag to require the U.S. shield
only for eartags using ``840'' AINs.
Another commenter stressed the importance of having official
identification devices be ``tamper evident'' and having provisions in
the regulations stating that the removal of such devices prior to
slaughter would be subject to penalties. The commenter also stated that
minimum retention rates for such devices should be established in
partnership with the livestock industry, and manufacturer compliance
with those rates should be required for participation in the NAIS.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to
these comments. The definition of official eartag in the November 2004
interim rule states that an official eartag ``must be tamper resistant
and have a high rate of retention in the animal.'' The commenter did
not indicate how ``tamper evident'' differs from ``tamper resistant.''
The species working groups recommend specific technologies and
performance requirements, including minimum retention rates, for those
technologies. Based on those recommendations, APHIS has developed an
evaluation process for device manufacturers seeking to have their
devices approved for use in the NAIS. This process includes the
evaluation of minimum retention rates for the identification devices
used in the NAIS. The interim rule did add prohibitions on removing
identification devices prior to slaughter to parts 71 and 93, though
penalties were not specified. Generally, our regulations do not include
descriptions of the penalties provided for by the Animal Health
Protection Act and other statutes.
Another commenter cautioned against relying completely on official
tags as the sole or primary physical identifier of animals in the NAIS.
Physical identifiers, the commenter noted, are not necessarily
permanent. Tags of all types are lost, damaged, malfunction, or become
unreadable. The commenter recommended that, in place of existing tag
requirements, we adopt for use in the NAIS a Device Animal
Identification Number--Radio Frequency Identification (DAIN-RF) tag.
The DAIN-RF tag would be required to be attached to each animal or
subdermally implanted in each animal, as determined by each species
group, and would have to meet ISO standards so that each identification
number would be unique. The DAIN-RF tag would be unofficial and would
not bear the U.S. shield. The tag would be required to display the
encoded ISO number on the outside. The use of these tags in the NAIS
would not require manufacturers to change their normal manufacturing
processes or to establish a unique color
[[Page 39304]]
for official identification. The commenter also argued that DAIN-RF
tags used for beef production should not be limited to a one-time use,
since reusable tags have been employed to identify animals in the beef
industry for over 10 years. The use of reusable tags reduces the costs
of animal identification.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this
comment. The commenter is certainly correct in saying that tags get
lost; however, while some tag loss is expected, the requirement
contained in the interim rule's definition of official eartag that such
tags have high retention rates will provide adequate protection.
Additional methods to validate identification when tags are lost will
be considered as technology becomes practical and affordable, but to
require identification that is absolutely permanent for all animals is
not practical today. One-time use of official identification devices
has been an important factor in maintaining the integrity of animal
identification for many years, and we feel strongly this practice
should continue. Additionally, the species working groups support the
use of official tags.
The same commenter also recommended that we add a definition of AIN
manager to the final rule. The commenter stated that AIN manager should
be defined as a representative of a company that receives allocations
from the USDA of UAINs (as defined by this commenter and referred to
earlier in this document) to be used as permanent database
identification for the animal. AIN managers would be data service
providers, data trustees, or others who participate in linking an ISO
RFID device on the animal and subsequent alternate identification
devices to the UAIN in a database.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to this
comment. The comment goes beyond the scope of this rulemaking, the
primary intent of which is to allow for the use of new numbering
systems for the identification of animals and premises for official
purposes in disease control and eradication programs. In the NAIS User
Guide, a document that was made available to the public in November
2006 and that represents the most up-to-date information about the
program, we defined an AIN device manager, in part, as an ``entity that
represents an AIN device manufacturer for the distribution of AIN
devices.'' Additional description of the roles and responsibilities of
the AIN device manager is provided in that definition and elsewhere in
the NAIS User Guide. We will follow the recommendations of the NAIS
Draft Program Standards, which were updated and released in February
2007 as the ``Program Standards and Technical Reference'' document, for
the allocation of AINs to AIN device manufacturers and the distribution
of AIN devices through AIN device managers and resellers.
The same commenter also recommended that we adopt a new definition
of officially identified. Based on this commenter's recommendation,
which was discussed earlier in this document, that we adopt the UAIN as
the official means of identification for individual animals in the
NAIS, the suggested new definition of officially identified would read
as follows: ``An animal that is uniquely and officially identified with
a tamper-proof database identifier allocated to data service providers
or data trustees by USDA and known as a UAIN. An officially identified
animal is one that has been reported to the official database for
purposes of NAIS tracing. The UAIN will be linked to the physical
identifiers associated with an animal.''
We are not making any changes to the final rule as a result of this
comment. As noted earlier, the AIN will serve as an animal's lifetime
identification number and will provide the same capabilities as the
UAIN that the commenter recommends. Having the AIN printed on an
animal's official tag will aid in the administration of animal health
programs.
The same commenter also suggested that we needed to add certain
definitions to the regulations in order to avoid ambiguity. While the
regulations provide specific definitions of commingling for swine and
sheep, no such definition is provided for cattle. The commenter
recommended that the regulations should state that, for cattle,
commingling means that an animal was not prohibited from coming in
contact with another animal. The commenter also stated that the
definition for a unit of animals varies among species, resulting in
potential ambiguity in the establishment of group identification, and
that production systems can be interpreted to have variable meanings
within and across species.
We will take these suggestions into consideration, though they
appear to go beyond the scope of the present rulemaking, which is
primarily concerned with allowing for the use of alternative numbering
systems for identifying animals and premises. The GIN standards
contained in this rule pertain to the numbering system. In the NAIS
User Guide, published on the NAIS Web site on November 22, 2006, we
defined the term commingle as referring ``to events where animals are
mixed or brought together with animals from other farms, ranches, or
other production systems.'' This definition was applicable to all
species.
A number of commenters stated that the voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program, which has worked effectively for small
producers, should be continued in its current form rather than being
replaced by a new identification system. (Numbering systems that are
accepted for official use in this program are described in 9 CFR 79.2,
which also contains a list of approved means of identification.) One of
these commenters stressed the importance of producers with small goat
herds being allowed to continue to use microchip implants as a means of
animal identification. Implants, according to this commenter, are more
reliable than eartags or tattoos, which are less likely to be permanent
and are more vulnerable to tampering.
We agree with these comments, but note that they do not necessitate
any changes to the final rule. Producers with small goat herds will
still be able to use microchip implants, since the definition of
official identification device or method contained in the interim rule
is sufficiently flexible to allow for the use of such devices.
One commenter suggested that when the NAIS is fully implemented,
health certificates for cattle should be eliminated. The commenter
stated that the health certificates would be a duplication of the
tracking function of the NAIS and would no longer be necessary. This
comment does not appear to be relevant to the current rulemaking.
Finally, in addition to the changes discussed above, we are adding
a definition of animal identification number (AIN) to Sec. 79.1 and
revising the existing definition of official eartag in that section so
that it matches the one described earlier in this document. These
changes will ensure that the definitions in part 79 are consistent with
the definitions found elsewhere in our regulations pertaining to the
interstate movement of animals.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this
document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
This final rule also affirms the information contained in the
interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
[[Page 39305]]
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 71
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 77
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Tuberculosis.
9 CFR Part 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 79
Animal diseases, Quarantine, Sheep, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 80
Animal diseases, Livestock, Transportation.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80 as
follows:
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
2. Section 71.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), group/lot identification number (GIN),
official eartag, and premises identification number (PIN) and by adding
a definition of premises to read as follows:
Sec. 71.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
Group/lot identification number (GIN). The identification number
used to uniquely identify a ``unit of animals'' of the same species
that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest
production chain. The GIN consists of a seven-character premises
identification number (PIN), as defined in this section, a six-digit
representation of the date on which the group or lot of animals was
assembled (MM/DD/YY), and two additional digits, ranging from 01 to 99,
for the numbering of different groups or lots of animals assembled on
the same premises on the same day. When more than one group of animals
is assembled, the groups will be designated consecutively as 01, 02,
03, etc.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S.
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the
production number must both appear on the official tag.
(4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
Premises. A location where livestock or poultry are housed or kept.
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or location descriptors
which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises identification
number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own livestock
production numbering system to provide a unique identification number
for an animal. It may also be used as a component of a group/lot
identification number (GIN). The premises identification number may
consist of:
(1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the
premises' assigned number; or
(2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *
PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS
0
3. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
4. Section 77.2 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and premises
identification number (PIN) to read as follows:
Sec. 77.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S.
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the
production number must both appear on the official tag.
(4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
[[Page 39306]]
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other location
descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises
identification number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own
livestock production numbering system to provide a unique
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number
may consist of:
(1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the
premises' assigned number; or
(2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *
PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS
0
5. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
6. Section 78.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN) and official eartag to read as follows:
Sec. 78.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S.
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(a) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(b) Animal identification number (AIN).
(c) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined
in Sec. 71.1 of this chapter, with a producer's livestock production
numbering system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and
the production number must both appear on the official tag.
(d) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
PART 79--SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND GOATS
0
7. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
8. Section 79.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the definition of premises identification, by removing the words
``number, as'' and adding the words ``number (PIN), as'' in their
place.
0
b. By revising the definitions of official eartag and premises
identification number (PIN) and adding a definition of animal
identification number (AIN) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 79.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code
(840 for the United States), the alpha characters USA, or the numeric
code assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S.
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the
production number must both appear on the official tag.
(4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other location
descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises
identification number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own
livestock production numbering system to provide a unique
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number
may consist of:
(1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the
premises' assigned number; or
(2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *
PART 80--JOHNE'S DISEASE IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS
0
9. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
10. Section 80.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and premises
identification number (PIN) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The AIN contains 15 digits,
[[Page 39307]]
with the first 3 being the country code (840 for the United States),
the alpha characters USA, or the numeric code assigned to the
manufacturer of the identification device by the International
Committee on Animal Recording.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag providing unique
identification for individual animals. An official eartag which
contains or displays an AIN with an 840 prefix must bear the U.S.
shield. The design, size, shape, color, and other characteristics of
the official eartag will depend on the needs of the users, subject to
the approval of the Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-
resistant and have a high retention rate in the animal. Official
eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines an official premises identification number (PIN), as defined
in this section, with a producer's livestock production numbering
system to provide a unique identification number. The PIN and the
production number must both appear on the official tag.
(4) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of animals in commerce.
* * * * *
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority, a geographically distinct location
from other premises. The premises identification number is associated
with an address, geospatial coordinates, and/or other location
descriptors which provide a verifiably unique location. The premises
identification number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own
livestock production numbering system to provide a unique
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number
may consist of:
(1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed by the
premises' assigned number; or
(2) A seven-character alphanumeric code, with the right-most
character being a check digit. The check digit number is based upon the
ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit algorithm.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-13932 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P