[Federal Register: November 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 215)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62798-62802]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07no07-21]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 62798]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 88
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0168]
RIN 0579-AC49
Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the
commercial transportation of equines to slaughter to add a definition
of equine for slaughter and make other changes that will extend the
protections afforded by the regulations to equines bound for slaughter
but delivered first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. This
action would further ensure the humane treatment of such equines by
helping to ensure that the unique and special needs of equines in
commercial transportation to slaughter are met.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
January 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agency
drop-down menu, then click ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column, select
APHIS-2006-0168 to submit or view public comments and to view
supporting and related materials available electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close
of the comment period, is available through the site's ``User Tips''
link.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your
comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0168,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0168.
Reading Room: 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.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Timothy Cordes, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Equine Programs, National Center for Animal Health
Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301) 734-3279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 7, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR
63588-63617, Docket No. 98-074-2) a final rule that established
regulations concerning the commercial transportation of equines for
slaughter. That rulemaking was initiated under the provisions of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the Act), in
which Congress, recognizing that equines being transported to slaughter
have unique and special needs, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture
to issue guidelines for the regulation of the commercial transportation
of equines for slaughter by persons regularly engaged in that activity
in the United States (see 7 U.S.C. 1901 note).
The regulations in 9 CFR part 88 (the regulations) contain minimum
standards to ensure the humane movement of equines for slaughter via
commercial transportation. The regulations cover, among other things,
the food, water, and rest provided to such equines prior to their
transportation to slaughter, standards for conveyances used to
transport equines to slaughter, and certain paperwork required to
accompany equines during such transportation. The regulations also
require the owner/shipper of the equines to take certain actions to
ensure the safety and humane treatment of equines during loading and
transportation for slaughter, including seeking immediate assistance
from an equine veterinarian for any equine in obvious physical
distress. In addition, the regulations prohibit the commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities of equines considered to be
unfit for travel, the use of electric prods on equines in commercial
transportation to slaughter, and, after December 7, 2006, the use of
double-deck trailers for commercial transportation of equines to
slaughtering facilities.
The Act defines ``equine for slaughter'' as ``any member of the
Equidae family being transferred to a slaughter facility, including an
assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.'' The regulations in 9 CFR part
88 apply to equines moved in commercial transportation to slaughtering
establishments but not to equines bound for slaughter but moved first
to an assembly point, feedlot or stockyard. When the regulations were
established in 2001, we believed that equines transported to
slaughtering establishments were at high risk of being treated
inhumanely, and that equines transported to assembly points, feedlots,
or stockyards were likely to be treated well, either to bring more
money at slaughter or to be sold for other purposes. Five years later,
it appears that equines in commercial transportation to slaughtering
facilities, specifically, are being treated humanely, in accordance
with the regulations.
As the regulations are written, equines sold as slaughter horses
may be transported first to an assembly point, for example, in a
double-deck trailer and without any of the other protections afforded
by the regulations, such as receiving adequate water and food prior to
loading. We believe that equines may be delivered to these intermediate
points en route to slaughter for the sole purpose of avoiding
compliance with the regulations. In particular, since December 7, 2006,
when the regulations no longer allowed double-deck trailers to
transport equines to slaughtering facilities, truckers who wish to
continue using double-deck trailers for slaughter
[[Page 62799]]
horses have an incentive to transport them to assembly points,
feedlots, or stockyards, where the horses could then be reloaded onto
straight-deck trailers for the final leg of the trip to the
slaughtering plant. We have received numerous reports of this situation
occurring. Given these developments, it now appears that equines that
are bound for slaughter but are delivered first to an assembly point,
feedlot, or stockyard are at higher risk for inhumane treatment.
To close this loophole, we are proposing to amend the regulations
to add a definition for the term equine for slaughter to read ``any
member of the Equidae family being transferred to a slaughter facility,
including an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.'' We also propose
to amend Sec. 88.2(b), Sec. 88.3(a) introductory text, Sec. 88.3(b),
Sec. 88.4(a) introductory text, and Sec. 88.4(b)(4), (c), (d), and
(e) by replacing the words ``equines to a slaughtering facility'',
``equines to slaughtering facilities'', ``equines in commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities'', ``equine to the
slaughtering facility'', and ``equines in commercial transportation to
a slaughtering facility'' with the term ``equines for slaughter''.
Lastly, we are proposing to amend Sec. 88.4(b) introductory text by
replacing the words ``transit to the slaughtering facility'' with the
words ``commercial transportation of equines for slaughter''.
We would consider equines delivered to an assembly point, feedlot,
or stockyard to be equines for slaughter and subject to the regulations
unless the owner/shipper presents an official certificate of veterinary
inspection and the original copy of a negative equine infectious anemia
test chart, or other documents that indicate the names and addresses of
the consigner, consignee, owner, and examining veterinarian for any
equine being shipped, as evidence that the equines are not equines for
slaughter.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to evaluate
the potential effects of their rules on small entities. The analysis
that follows represents an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in
accordance with the requirements of the RFA. Because data on the
commercial transport of equines to intermediate points en route to
slaughter is sparse at best, we were not able to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of the proposed rule's potential economic
impact. Accordingly, we welcome public comment that would enable us to
more fully assess the proposal's impact. We are particularly interested
in public comment on the impact of the ban on double-deck trailers for
use in transporting equines for slaughter.
APHIS's regulations in 9 CFR part 88 are designed to help ensure
the humane commercial transport of equines to slaughter. Specifically,
the regulations require that:
For a period of not less than 6 consecutive hours
immediately prior to the equines being loaded on the conveyance for
transport, each equine be provided access to food and water and the
opportunity to rest;
Any equine that has been on the conveyance for 28
consecutive hours or more without food, water, and the opportunity to
rest be offloaded and, for at least 6 consecutive hours, provided with
food, water, and the opportunity to rest;
Each equine be provided with enough space on the
conveyance to ensure that no animal is crowded in a way likely to cause
injury or discomfort;
Stallions and other aggressive equines be segregated from
each other and all other equines on the conveyance;
Electric prods be used only in life-threatening
situations; and
An owner-shipper certificate be completed for each equine
prior to departing for the slaughtering facility. Among other things,
the certificate must certify the equine's fitness to travel and note
any special care and handling needs during transit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An equine is considered fit to travel if it: (1) Can bear
weight on all four limbs; (2) can walk unassisted; (3) is not blind
in both eyes; (4) is older than 6 months of age; and (5) is not
likely to give birth in transit. The owner or commercial shipper
must sign the certificate, and it must accompany the equine to the
slaughtering facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, the regulations apply only to equines moved directly to
slaughtering establishments, and not to equines bound for slaughter but
moved first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. This proposed
rule would amend the regulations to make equines delivered to
intermediate points en route to slaughter subject to the same
regulations as those moved directly to slaughtering establishments.
This proposed rule is intended to ensure the humane treatment of
equines delivered to intermediate points en route to slaughter.
Equines are generally slaughtered for their meat, which is sold for
human consumption, primarily outside the United States.\2\ In 2005, the
United States exported 39.5 million pounds of horse, ass, and mule
meat, with a value of $61.1 million. Of the total volume exported in
2005, 35.3 million pounds, or 89 percent, was shipped to five countries
(Belgium, France, Mexico, Russia, and Switzerland).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Horses account for almost all equines slaughtered in the
United States.
\3\ Source: World Trade Atlas (U.S. Census Bureau).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2003 through 2005, an average of 70,094 equines were
slaughtered annually in federally inspected U.S. slaughtering
facilities.\4\ During that period, and at the time this analysis was
prepared, there were three slaughtering facilities that accepted
equines in the continental United States: Two were located in Texas and
one in Illinois. However, following a Federal appeals court ruling, the
two facilities in Texas are now closed. Following an unsuccessful
challenge to a State law to stay open, the Illinois facility is also
closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Source: USDA (NASS), Livestock Slaughter Summary (2003,
2004, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS estimates that there are no more than 100 entities in the
U.S. currently involved in the commercial transportation of equines to
slaughter. As discussed below, the transport of slaughter equines to
intermediate points is not uncommon. Based on the average number of
equines slaughtered in the United States each year between 2003 and
2005 (approximately 70,000) and on the estimated number of potentially
affected shippers (approximately 100), the average number of equines
transported annually per shipper is 700.
Economic Effects on Owners and Commercial Shippers
The ``path'' from source supplier (farmer, rancher, pet owner,
etc.) to slaughtering facility can vary. However, the most common
scenario and the one used for the purpose of this analysis is as
follows: The source suppliers transport their equines to local auction
markets, where the equines are sold to persons who purchase the equines
for the specific purposes of selling them to a slaughtering facility.
(Hereafter, for the purposes of this initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, we will refer to persons who sell equines for slaughter as
``owners''; however, in some cases, the owners use agents to conduct
some aspect of the business of purchasing equines and transporting and
selling them to slaughtering facilities. We will use the term ``owner''
to refer to either
[[Page 62800]]
the actual owners or their agents.) The owners consider price lists
published by the slaughtering facilities for equines (the price varies
in relation to the weight of the equine and the quality of the meat),
transportation costs, and profit requirements to establish the maximum
prices that they will pay for equines at local auctions. Because the
owners cannot usually purchase enough slaughter-quality equines at any
one auction to make it economically feasible to ship the animals
directly from the auction site to the slaughtering facility, the owners
transport the equines back to their own farms or feedlots where the
equines are kept until such time as the owners can accumulate more
equines from other auctions. When enough equines have been accumulated
to comprise a shipment, the owners transport the equines to the
slaughtering facility. In an estimated 75 percent of cases, owners hire
commercial shippers to move the equines to the slaughtering facilities;
in the remaining estimated 25 percent of cases, owners transport the
equines to slaughter in their own conveyances.
Based on the slaughter scenario described above, this proposed rule
has the potential to economically affect owners who purchase equines at
local auction markets and then transport the animals to their farms,
feedlots, or other assembly points prior to shipping them on to
slaughter. (The owners' farms and feedlots are intermediate stops en
route to slaughter.) However, the proposed rule also has the potential
to affect owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from the
owners' farms or feedlots to assembly points, feedlots, and stockyards
prior to the animals' final delivery to a slaughtering facility. We are
aware that such transport to intermediate points between the owner's
farms or feedlots and the slaughtering facility occurs but we do not
know the extent of that transport. However, we have no reason to
believe it is significant.
The proposed rule is likely to have little or no impact on most
owners who transport equines from local auction markets to their farms
or feedlots. There are several reasons. First, equines sold for
slaughter at auctions usually have access to food, water, and rest for
at least 6 hours prior to being transported to the owners' farms and
feedlots. Sellers at auction markets have an incentive to provide
equines with food and water because malnourished equines have a reduced
slaughter value. Furthermore, most slaughter equines tend to be in
their pens at auction markets for at least 6 hours, since it usually
takes at least that long for them to be sold. Indeed, it is not
uncommon for slaughter horses to be sold at the end of an auction
session, after the saddle horses are sold. The requirement that equines
have access to food, water, and rest for at least 6 consecutive hours
immediately prior to the animals being loaded on the conveyance should
not be a problem for owners who transport equines from auction sites.
Second, owners typically purchase equines at auction markets that
are in relatively close proximity to their farms and feedlots. It is
unlikely, therefore, that equines acquired at auctions will have to be
offloaded for feeding, rest, etc., while en route to the owners' farms
or feedlots, since it is unlikely that the trip will take longer than
28 hours.
Third, the proposed rule would require that, during transport to
intermediate points, equines be provided with enough space to ensure
that they are not crowded in a way that is likely to cause injury or
discomfort. The proposed rule would specifically ban the use of double-
deck trailers for such transport, as those types of conveyances are a
source of animal injury and discomfort. However, owners who transport
equines from local auction markets to their farms or feedlots generally
do not do so using double-deck trailers. The transport to owner farms
and feedlots almost always occurs in smaller capacity conveyances, such
as straight-deck and goose-neck trailers.\5\ That owners transport the
animals back to their own farms or feedlots (rather than to
slaughtering facilities directly) only because they cannot purchase
enough slaughter-quality equines at any one auction is, in itself, an
indication that they have no need for the higher capacity double-deck
trailers for such transport. Although overcrowding can also occur in
single-deck (also called straight-deck) trailers, there is no evidence
to suggest that it is an issue for owners who pick up slaughter equines
at auction markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Double-deck livestock trailers can carry up to about 45
equines each; single-deck trailers can carry up to about 38 equines
each. Prior to the ban that became effective December 8, 2006,
double-deck trailers were most often used for transporting equines
to slaughter facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the restriction on the use of electric prods should not
pose a burden because effective, low-cost substitutes are available for
use in non-life-threatening situations. For example, fiberglass poles
with flags attached, which cost no more than about $10 each, are
considered to be an effective alternative to electric prods. (Any
current use of electric prods by transporters of slaughter equines
probably derives from the traditional use of these devices to assist in
moving other livestock, such as cattle and swine.)
Finally, available data suggest that the segregation of stallions
and other aggressive equines is already a common transport practice.
Owners have an incentive to make sure that aggressive equines are
segregated because equines that arrive at the slaughtering facilities
injured as the result of biting and kicking en route command lower
market values. Furthermore, relatively few stallions are transported
for slaughter. USDA personnel stationed at two of the slaughtering
facilities have estimated that no more than about 5 percent of equines
arriving for slaughter are stallions. Accordingly, the requirement that
stallions and other aggressive equines be segregated during transport
to slaughter is not likely to have a significant economic effect on
owners who pick up equines at various auction markets.
As indicated above, the proposed rule also has the potential to
affect owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from the
owner's farms or feedlots to assembly points, feedlots, and stockyards
prior to the animals' final delivery to a slaughtering facility. These
entities are more likely to be affected by the proposed rule than
owners who transport equines from auction markets to their farms and
feedlots only, because they are more likely to be using double-deck
trailers. (This is because equines are typically moved from owners'
farms and feedlots only when enough equines have been accumulated to
comprise a full shipment, a situation which is likely to foster use of
the higher-capacity double-deck trailers.) Nonetheless, we believe that
owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from owners' farms
or feedlots to intermediate points prior to the animals' final delivery
to a slaughtering facility are likely to be in compliance with most
parts of the proposed rule.
Nor should the ``28-hour'' rule pose a problem for the vast
majority of owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from
owners' farms or feedlots to intermediate points prior to the animals'
final shipment to a slaughtering facility. Even in a worst-case
scenario in terms of travel distance (i.e., equines transported from
farms or feedlots on the east or west coasts to border crossing points
in closest proximity to the slaughtering facilities in Mexico, which
are all located in the central part of the United States), the
overwhelming majority of trips should take less than 28 hours. Assuming
an average highway speed of 55 mph and
[[Page 62801]]
two different drivers, and allowing 1.5 hours for loading and 2 hours
for refueling and meal stops, even a trip as long as 1,300 miles would
take only about 27 hours.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ It is common transport practice to use two different drivers
on long trips. This practice allows the equines to be transported
virtually nonstop because one person can drive while the other
rests, thereby avoiding federally mandated rest periods that apply
in a single-driver situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double-deck trailers can carry more equines than single-deck
trailers, and owners and shippers who are using the former will be
affected by the reduction in the number of equines that could be
transported in a single conveyance. However, for affected owners and
commercial shippers, the ban on double-deck trailers is likely to be
mitigated by several factors. First, commercial shippers can use their
double-deck trailers to transport other livestock and produce. In this
regard, it has been estimated that double-deck trailers in general
carry equines no more than about 10 percent of the time they are in
use. Second, owners who cannot find another use for the double-deck
trailers can trade them for single-deck trailers. Owners should be able
to sell their serviceable trailers at fair market value to transporters
of commodities other than equines.
In conclusion, we believe that most transporters to intermediate
points are already in compliance with most or all of the proposed
rule's requirements. Those that are not now in compliance are likely to
be owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from owners'
farms or feedlots to intermediate points prior to the animals' final
delivery to a slaughtering facility, since their load volume fosters
the use of the higher capacity double-deck trailers. While we know that
transport to intermediate points between the owners' farms or feedlots
and the slaughtering facility occurs, we do not believe it is at a
level that this proposed rule would result in any significant economic
impacts.
Impact on Horse Slaughtering Facilities
The proposed rule also has the potential to economically affect the
horse slaughtering facilities, to the extent that it could negatively
affect the supply of slaughter horses. As indicated above, there are
currently no horse slaughtering facilities operating in the United
States, however, the possibility exists that such facilities could open
in the future. As a result of the ban on double-deck trailers, for
example, fewer transporters may be willing to haul slaughter horses,
and those that are willing will have to do it in smaller capacity
single-deck trailers. A decline in supply has implications for the
slaughtering facility since it may lead to an increase in the price
they pay to acquire horses. Nevertheless, as indicated above, we
believe that most transporters to intermediate points are already in
compliance with most or all of the proposed rule's requirements,
including the prohibition on double-deck trailers.
Impact on Small Entities
As indicated above, it is estimated that no more than about 100
entities are potentially affected by the proposed rule, most of whom
are equine owners and commercial shippers. Although we do not have
specific information on the annual receipts of these entities, it is
reasonable to assume that most are small by U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) standards. This assumption is based on composite
data for providers of the same and similar services in the United
States. In 2002, the most recent year for which data is available,
there were 44,933 U.S. establishments in North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) categories 48422 and 48423, which
comprise firms primarily engaged in specialized freight trucking,
including the transportation of livestock. The per-establishment
average gross receipts for all 44,933 establishments that year was $0.9
million, well below the SBA's small-entity threshold of $23.5 million.
Similarly, in 2002, there were 1,048 U.S. establishments in NAICS
42459, a classification category that includes horse dealers. For all
1,048 establishments, the per-establishment average number of employees
that year was 7, well below the SBA's small-entity threshold of 100
employees for those firms.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Source: SBA and U.S. Census Bureau (2002 Economic Census).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of
this proposed rule with other Federal rules.
Alternatives
In developing the current regulations, APHIS opted for a number of
alternatives designed to lessen the economic effects of the regulations
on affected small entities, including a deferral, for 5 years, of the
effective date for the prohibition on double-deck trailers.\8\ The ban
on double-deck trailers under the current regulations took effect
December 8, 2006, which means that owner-shippers that currently use
double-deck trailers to transport equines to intermediate points would
face a ban on the use of those trailers under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The final rule published in 2001 noted that a 5-year
deferral allows slaughter facilities time to respond to the expected
decline in the number of transporters willing to haul horses to
slaughter, including time to budget and to arrange for financing of
equipment they may need to acquire if they must haul horses on their
own because commercial shippers and owners will not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public comment on the proposed rule's economic impact is invited,
especially comment on any impact for small entities stemming from
prohibition on the use of double-deck trailers to move equines to
intermediate points, such as stockyards and feedlots, before moving
them to a slaughter facility.
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
In accordance with section 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection and
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. APHIS-
2006-0168. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS-2006-0168, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station 3A-03.8, 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.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations in 9 CFR part 88 to
provide for the humane treatment of equines en route to slaughter
facilities through intermediate points. We are soliciting
[[Page 62802]]
comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our
information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments
will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the 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
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).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.834960937 hours per response.
Respondents: Owners and shippers of slaughter horses and drivers of
vehicles of equines for slaughter.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 130.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 39.38461538.
Estimated annual number of responses: 5,120.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4,275 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
734-7477.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 88
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 9 CFR part 88 as follows:
PART 88--COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION OF EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER
1. The authority citation for part 88 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1901, 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, 371.4.
2. Section 88.1 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a new
definition for equine for slaughter to read as follows:
Sec. 88.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Equine for slaughter. Any member of the Equidae family being
transferred to a slaughter facility, including an assembly point,
feedlot, or stockyard.
* * * * *
Sec. 88.2 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 88.2, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words
``equines to a slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines
for slaughter'' in their place.
Sec. 88.3 [Amended]
4. Section 88.3 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the words
``equines to slaughtering facilities'' and adding the words ``equines
for slaughter'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (b), by removing the words ``Equines in commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities'' and adding the words
``Equines for slaughter'' in their place.
Sec. 88.4 [Amended]
5. Section 88.4 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the words
``equines to a slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines
for slaughter'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the words ``transit to the
slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``throughout transit to
slaughter'' in their place.
c. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by removing the words
``transit to the slaughtering facility'' and adding the words
``commercial transportation of equines for slaughter'' in their place.
d. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the words ``equine to the
slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines for slaughter''
in their place.
e. In paragraph (c), by removing the words ``equines in commercial
transportation to a slaughtering facility'' both times they occur and
adding the words ``equines for slaughter'' in their place.
f. In paragraphs (d) and (e), by removing the words ``equines to a
slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines for slaughter''
in their place.
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of November 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-21896 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P