Manual of Dosimetry

Posted on March 28, 2013 by admin

First Edition of the Radio-frequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook

PREFACE

The first edition of the Radiofrequency Radiation Dosimetry Handbook, SAM-TR-76-35 (September 1976), was published with the objective of providing the best information then available about electromagnetic energy absorption. In that edition the dosimetric data were limited mostly to the lower part of the electromagnetic spectrum, principally in the 10 kHz-1.5 GHz range, and also to homogeneous spheroidal and ellipsoidal models of humans and other animals. The data clearly demonstrated the importance of frequency, geometric configuration, and orientation in the assessment of biological effects induced by radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Continue reading →

Enviromental Medicine Makes Announcement on WiFi in Schools

Posted on January 7, 2013 by admin

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine
Statement on WiFi in Schools

Adverse health effects from wireless radio frequency fields, such as learning disabilities, altered immune responses, and headaches, clearly exist and are well documented in the scientific literature. Safer technology, such as use of hard-wiring, is strongly recommended in schools.

Approved by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine Board of Directors on October 3, 2012.

Invisible Tattoo for the Masses?

Posted on November 30, 2009 by admin

For the past several years many of us have been watching the company Somark.Â The idea of an implantable, glass microchip the size of a grain of rice into the flesh of man and beast alike was repulsive to most people.Â Somark has deveoped an invisible RFID readable tattoo.Â Nobody knows you have it.Â It is your little secret.Â The concept is reminisicent of WWII when undesirables were tattooed on their forearm.Â DOD documents in 2006 revealed that anything ‘chipped’ for purposes of tracking would need to be placed on an exterior position because the density of the object being tracked can throw off the reading.

Somark has concluded its field animal studies and is now ready for other purposes.Â What is Somark saying about its product(s)?

Hello, weâ€™re SOMARK Innovations – the creators of the versatile SOMARK ID system. Our aim is to provide advancements in identification and tracking – specifically lab-animal identification. By helping researchers reduce development timelines, our technology has an increased likelihood for success.

Why our technology Simple.

easy to apply, reliable and cost effective
both human and computer readable
designed for touchless reading for reduced animal stress

Launching the SOMARK system will provide the research community with an identification system that increases the accuracy of data and reduces the labor costs associated with animal identification.Â Hello, we’re SOMARK Innovations – the creators of the versatile SOMARK ID system. Our aim is to provide advancements in identification and tracking – specifically lab-animal identification. By helping researchers reduce development timelines, our technology has an increased likelihood for success. Continue reading →

From the Pages of History: The Wal-Mart Factor

Posted on January 25, 2009 by admin

Jack in 2005 The Food Insider did a story on impact Wal Mart would have on several different sectors.Â There were some interesting highlights.Â Please stroll with me down memory-lane:

Issue Date: July 2005, Posted On: 7/1/2005

Operating the Wal-mart way
Kristal Arnold
karnold@vancepublishing.com
Corporate Goliath or consumer-friendly retail outlet? Always low prices, or always low wages? When it comes to Wal-Mart, there seems to be no middle ground. The world’s largest retailer, with $258 billion in sales last year, also became America’s largest food retailer in 2002. Nearly 40 percent of the company’s sales are now grocery sales, and that means Wal-Mart’s influence — good -or bad, depending on your view — will have a dramatic effect on how you raise pigs, make cheese or process beef.

[...] But Wal-Mart also sells $5.3 billion in fresh meats each year, Ken Stettmeier, head of Wal-Mart’s fresh-meats department, told a group of Kansas cattlemen earlier this year. (Wal-Mart declined to be interviewed.)

[...]

Retail Forward also predicts Wal-Mart to control 35 percent of food-store-industry sales by 2007.

With that kind of buying power, Wal-Mart’s influence on the food-supply chain is undeniable.

(Interesting that this reporter mentions below animal-protein, a topic which rabid animal activists such as PETA and the United Nations tend to eliminate from the American dinner plate.)
How does Wal-Mart’s low-price business model affect the rest of the animal-protein food industry?

(Here is a priceless quote):Â Brian Buhr, a professor in the department of applied economics at the University of Minnesota, believes the consumer owes a debt of gratitude to Wal-Mart for its everyday low pricing, which he believes keeps inflation down.

(Well Mr. Buhr now that American jobs have been out-sourced and contaminated Chinese products fill our homes are so sure that low prices are a good thing?Â Buying American did cost more but one wasn’t playing Russian roulette when he spent his pay check.

“How often have you heard it said that manufacturers just haven’t been able to pass on costs to consumers?” he asks. “Wal-Mart has put a lot of pressure on manufacturers and suppliers of all industries to squeeze out supply-chain costs, and all in all, that has been very good.” (not for farmers and ranchers)

The Wal Mart New Customer Rules the Agricultural Roost

Vern Pierce, a beef economist with the University of Missouri Commercial Agriculture Program, agrees and has a message for the industry: “The old paradigm is one which you could send products to market with whatever quality you desired and get paid an amount of money that would provide you a profit — that system is over.” The food industry is learning that it is no longer part of the historic agriculture paradigm and is recognizing that it’s part of a new consumer culture run by people in the retail world, being driven by consumer demand, he says.

Wal Mart’s Kill Policy

[...] Says Chuck Jolley, president of Jolley & Associates. “Wal-Mart’s pricing strategy has the potential to kill the mid-priced, mid-quality range of products,” he says.

Impacting the chain

Wal-Mart has far-reaching influence throughout the chain, but most agree that its biggest impact is at the retail level. “Wal-Mart is teaching other retailers how to deliver the products that are needed by consumers, to the consumers that want them, in the shape and format that they want them,” Pierce says. “That first step has to be at the retail level, in partnership with the consumers to start to send back that signal, and that’s a signal we’ve never had in the beef industry.”

Passing the Buck of Bad Products

Unlike at restaurants, where consumers associate the product with the restaurant (“I bought this hamburger at McDonald’s, and they’re responsible”), at retail, consumers view the manufacturer as the source of the product (“I bought Tyson pork chops at Wal-Mart, but Tyson’s responsible”), Buhr explains. “So, restaurants will hammer production/processing because it directly affects their viability as a brand and they will protect that at all costs. Wal-Mart can find it much easier and more likely to pass the buck — â€˜hey, we just stock the shelves’ — so the incentives to drive production in meats will come, and has come, more directly from the restaurant side of the business.” An example of this is the pressure on methods of animal rearing being requested of suppliers by McDonald’s, he adds.

Quality Product Termination

That “hey, we just stock the shelves” position has taken some sectors out of the mix entirely, Jolley says. “Wal-Mart is really in the distribution business, looking for the absolute-lowest-cost producers of a product, then moving it as quickly as possible through the marketing chain,” he says.

This search for the lowest-cost producer will continue to change the face of Wal-Mart’s product offerings, as the retailer has already shown a willingness to find cheaper resources overseas. Wal-Mart estimates that it bought about $18 billion in product from China last year. “With the major disruptions in the North American cattle market caused by the closure of the Canadian border, it doesn’t take a big leap of faith to believe Asia will become their major supplier of meat and poultry within the next 10-20 years,” Jolley says.

Radio-frequency identification (RFID)

Although Wal-Mart’s greatest impact in the chain has been at retail, Wal-Mart has changed the face of its suppliers, too. Wal-Mart required its top 100 suppliers be RFID-compliant by the first of this year, and suppliers have collectively spent $250 million to implement the technology, according to AMR Research released this past winter. Wal-Mart suppliers spent about $1 million to $3 million each to meet Wal-Mart’s minimum requirements, i.e. to purchase tags, readers and minimal software, according to AMR. In order to see any significant benefit, suppliers will need to spend about $13 million to $23 million more.

Wal-Mart’s RFID mandate affects not only suppliers, but also other members of the chain, as eventually the hope with RFID is that the meat will be traceable to the farm.

Joking to Bankupt “Everyone Else”

“My standard joke has been that RFID really is a Wal-Mart plot to bankrupt everybody else,” Coupe jokes. “It creates tremendous pressure on everybody to get into the game.”

Even though Wal-Mart’s top- 100-supplier RFID mandate affects only a few meat-industry-related suppliers, it’s still an area to watch, since as with any technology that a retailer of Wal-Mart’s size requires of its suppliers, RFID is becoming the standard, Pierce says. When a supplier must modify its operations to comply with one retailer, in order to pay for that equipment, the company must do all of its business using that equipment, thus it becomes the standard, he explains, as was the circumstance with case-ready meats.

[...]

Consolidation

Wal-Mart played an unquestionable role in the industry-wide shift to case-ready, but what role has the retailer played in the consolidation of the various meat industries?

“The consolidation of the pork and poultry industries was under way before Wal-Mart was a factor,” Jolley says. However, he believes Wal-Mart’s presence will speed beef- industry consolidation.

Buhr agrees that Wal-Mart will likely play an increasing role, but he differentiates two consolidations, both driven by desire for increased efficiencies. One is vertical consolidation, which is the desire for increased quality and supply control through the chain. The other is horizontal marketing consolidation driven by efficiencies to bundle meat categories into a one-stop supplier for the meat case. He notes that recent cross-sector consolidation, like Tyson pork, beef and poultry and Hormel pork, turkey and beef, is an example of the desire by Wal-Mart and others to have a single solution for the meat case. The industry hasn’t yet hit the third stage, which is a continued combination of vertical and horizontal consolidation, in which Buhr says the demands of retail will directly affect the production sector.Â (That loss of access for Americans to quality, local products which are untampered by multi-national interests)

NAIS Public Disclosure Doc: RFID/Tracking Demo Costs

Posted on January 22, 2009 by admin

wsda-demo-costs-2006

NAIS Public Disclosure Doc: Electronic Animal Identification

Posted on January 22, 2009 by admin

wsda-nais-component-2-animal-electronic-identification-nov-16-2006

NAIS Public Disclosure Doc: WSDA says lets have a ‘positive’, ‘no rush’, ‘not confusing’ [RFID] Tagging Day!

Posted on January 19, 2009 by admin

wsda-3033-cattle-advisory-committee-says-lets-have-a-positive-no-rush-not-confusing-tagging-day-small-farmers-say-you-first-wsda

APHIS Animal Identification Numbering Systems

Posted on January 15, 2009 by admin

<PRE>[Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8)][Proposed Rules][Page 1634-1643]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr13ja09-14]

========================================================================
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 1634]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80

[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096]
RIN 0579-AC72

Official Animal Identification Numbering Systems

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the domestic livestock regulations
to require that when animal identification numbers (AINs) are used,
only those numbers beginning with the 840 prefix will be recognized as
official for use on all AIN tags applied to animals 1 year or more
after the date on which this proposed rule is finalized. In addition,
we are proposing to require that all new premises identification
numbers (PINs) that are issued on or after the effective date of this
rule use the seven-character alphanumeric code format. Official eartags
that use a premises based numbering system issued after a 1-year phase-
in period will be required to use the seven-character alphanumeric code
format as well. Further, we are proposing several changes pertaining to
the use of the U.S. shield on official eartags, numbering systems that
use such eartags, and the correlation of those numbering systems with
the PIN. These proposed changes are intended to achieve greater
standardization and uniformity of official numbering systems and
eartags used in animal disease programs and to enhance animal
traceability, as discussed in previous Federal Register documents
pertaining to the National Animal Identification System.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March
16, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <A HREF=”http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail%26d=APHIS-2007-0096″>http://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0096</A> to submit or view comments and
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
<bullet> Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0096, 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-2007-0096.
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 <A HREF=”http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.aphis.usda.gov”>http://www.aphis.usda.gov</A>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Wiemers, Senior Staff
Officer, National Animal Identification Staff, VS, APHIS, 2100 S. Lake
Storey Rd., Galesburg, IL 61401; (309) 344-1942.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal health, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has launched a series of initiatives
to provide national standards for animal disease traceability. These
include the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a cooperative
State/Federal/industry program administered by the USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
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
numbering systems are important national standards for improved animal
disease traceability and are key elements in the NAIS.
On July 18, 2007, APHIS adopted that interim rule as a final rule
(72 FR 39301-39307, Docket No. 04-052-2) \1\ with several changes.
Neither the interim rule nor the final rule required the use of the
AIN, the GIN, or the PIN.
—————————————————————————

\1\ To view the interim rule, the comments we received, and the
subsequent final rule, go to <A HREF=”http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail%26d=APHIS-2004-0018″>http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2004-0018</A>.
—————————————————————————

Standardization of the AIN

The regulations established by the November 2004 interim rule and
the July 2007 final rule describe the AIN as a number containing 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. APHIS decided to recognize as official
AINs beginning with the letters USA or a manufacturer’s code in order
to avoid placing an excessive burden on producers who were already
using either of those two numbering systems for identifying their
animals. Only recognizing AINs with the country code 840 would have
required producers to retag their animals.
Moving to one uniform, standardized, technology-neutral numbering
system for the identification of livestock, however, is essential to
achieving more efficient and effective animal disease traceability.
Therefore, in the Supplementary Information section of our July 2007
final rule, we noted that we viewed the USA and manufacturer’s code
numbering systems as transitional. We anticipated phasing them out as
we focused our efforts on moving toward a single system whereby APHIS
would recognize as official only the AIN with the 840 prefix to the
extent practical. We further indicated that we would

[[Page 1635]]

provide additional information about the transition process in future
rulemaking.
We are now proposing to amend the regulations to recognize as
official only AINs beginning with 840 for use on all AIN tags applied
to animals 1 year or more after the date of the finalization of this
proposed rule. AINs with USA and manufacturer’s code prefixes imprinted
on eartags would not be recognized as official identification numbers
for animals born on or after the date upon which the proposed
requirement becomes effective. We would amend the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN) and official eartag in 9 CFR 71.1, 77.2,
78.1, 79.1, and 80.1 accordingly. We believe that requiring the 840 AIN
format for AIN tags applied to animals 1 year or more after this
proposed rule is finalized would provide enough advance notice to
inform and educate producers, allow them to work through existing
inventories of eartags, and make the transition achievable on a large
scale. Since this proposed requirement would apply only to animals
tagged 1 year or more after the finalization of this proposed rule, it
would not be necessary to retag animals that had been officially
identified prior to that date.
The entire transition period, i.e., the time it would take for all
animals with AIN eartags to have AINs with the 840 prefix, would likely
last for many years. Breeding beef cattle, for instance, typically live
10 years or more. Young calves selected for breeding and identified in
the fall of 2008 could conceivably still be wearing eartags with USA or
manufacturer’s code AINs in 2018 and beyond. It is not our intent at
this time to set a date by which AIN eartags in adult animals must
conform to the 840 standard.
As was the case with the November 2004 interim rule and the July
2007 final rule, this proposed rule would not require the use of the
AIN. Other animal identification numbering systems currently recognized
in the regulations for use on official eartags, such as the National
Uniform Eartagging System and premises-based numbering systems that
combine a PIN with a producer’s livestock production numbering system,
would continue to be so recognized. If the AIN is used, however, on an
official eartag or other device (currently, it is only used on eartags
and implants), only the format with the 840 prefix would be acceptable
for use on animals tagged 1 year or more after the date on which this
proposed rule is finalized.

Standardization of the PIN

While premises-based numbering systems that employ the PIN may be
used for the identification of individual animals, the fundamental
purpose of a PIN is to identify locations in the United States where
livestock and/or poultry are housed or kept. Premises identification
has value in and of itself, even if the animals on a given premises are
not identified individually. When animal health officials know where
at-risk animals and locations are and have accurate, up-to-date contact
information for their owners, they can respond quickly and
strategically to prevent disease spread.
The existing regulations recognize two types of PINs. The first
consists of the two-letter postal abbreviation of the State in which
the premises is located, followed by a number assigned to the premises
by a State animal health official. The second is 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. The latter format is the newer one of the two, having been
recognized as official in the November 2004 interim rule. As of
September 2008, more than 480,000 PINs using the 7-character
alphanumeric format had been issued.
Because the use of a single numbering system to represent premises
in all animal-health data systems would help to standardize information
and to enhance existing disease-tracing and emergency-response
capabilities, we are proposing to remove the PIN format that uses the
State postal abbreviation and are proposing to create a single national
format for the PIN by requiring that all PINs issued on or after the
date on which this proposed rule becomes effective would have to use
the seven-character alphanumeric code format. We would amend the
definitions of premises identification number (PIN) in Sec. Sec. 71.1,
77.2, 79.1, and 80.1 accordingly.
When the change becomes effective, the postal-code PIN format would
no longer be recognized as official for the identification of locations
where livestock or poultry are housed or kept. Locations that are
currently identified with a postal-code PIN will need to obtain a
seven-character PIN for use when the assignment of a numbered location
identifier is required by APHIS.
Identification eartags, as well as other devices or means of
official identification, such as backtags and tattoos, that employ a
premises-based numbering system that includes a PIN could not be
applied to animals 1 year or later after the date on which this
proposed rule is finalized if the PIN does not employ the seven-
character format. As is the case with our proposed requirement for
standardizing the AIN, we believe that the 1-year phase-in period for
requiring the seven-character PIN on eartags and other devices using
premises-based numbering systems would provide enough advance notice to
inform and educate producers, allow them to work through inventories of
eartags that employ postal-code PINs as a means of identifying animals,
and make this transition achievable on a large scale. Animals that are
currently identified with a premises-based numbering system that uses a
postal-code PIN would not have to be retagged, however, as the proposed
requirement is intended to be applied going forward. If the owner of
the premises has obtained a new seven-character PIN, older eartags
employing the postal-code PIN as a means of identifying animals would
be cross-referenced with the seven-character PIN in the premises
registration system maintained by the State that issued the postal-code
PIN.

Official Eartags

To help us achieve our goals of increased standardization and
enhanced animal traceability and to codify some identification methods
that are currently in use, we are proposing a number of changes to the
requirements for official eartags. These proposed changes pertain to
the use of the U.S. shield on official eartags, numbering systems that
may be used on such eartags, and the correlation of those numbering
systems with the PIN.
Previously, the regulations required that all official eartags had
to bear the U.S. shield. The shield is useful for traceback purposes
because it provides a readily visible means of recognizing official
animal identification devices. In the July 2007 final rule, however, we
amended the definition of official eartag to require that only official
eartags displaying an 840 AIN bear the U.S. shield. We narrowed the
shield requirement at that time in order to allow producers using AINs
beginning with USA or manufacturers’ code prefixes to continue to use
their existing tags rather than having to retag their animals.
In keeping with our intentions to phase out the use of those types
of AINs and to achieve greater standardization in numbering systems and
means and methods of animal identification, we are now proposing to
revert to the earlier requirement that all official eartags bear the
U.S. shield. The requirement would apply to official eartags issued 1
year or more after the date of the finalization of

[[Page 1636]]

this proposed rule. This proposed change would be complemented by
another, also aimed at achieving greater standardization: We would
amend the definition of official identification device or method in
Sec. Sec. 71.1, 78.1, and 79.1 to state that, going forward, the U.S.
shield would be reserved only for use on official identification
devices approved by APHIS, i.e., that it could not be used on any
unofficial identification devices. As is the case with our proposed 840
AIN requirement, the 1-year phase-in period is intended to allow
producers adequate time to work through existing inventories of
eartags.
Our proposed definition of official eartag would also require such
eartags, including those that use the National Uniform Eartagging
System, if issued or distributed in conjunction with a Federal disease
program, to be correlated with the PINs of the premises to which they
are issued, by means of the Animal Identification Number Management
System (AINMS) or other recordkeeping systems approved by the
Administrator. (Both the National Uniform Eartagging System and the
AINMS are discussed in greater detail later in this document.) For this
proposed requirement to be met, official eartags used in animal disease
programs could only be issued, going forward, to registered premises
that have PINs. In sections of the regulations that apply to sheep and
goats, e.g., in Sec. 79.1, the proposed definition would also indicate
that official eartags for those species would have to be approved by
APHIS for use in accordance with the scrapie regulations. Official
eartags used on sheep and goats in the National Scrapie Eradication
Program (NSEP) would have to be correlated with the PINs of the owner’s
premises and, where applicable, a flock identification number (FIN) in
the National Scrapie Database. Correlating eartags with PINs would aid
in tracing animals back to their farms of origin in the event of
disease outbreaks.
Our proposed definition of official eartag would also require that
when AIN eartags are used, the AINs would have to be correlated with
the PINs of the premises to which they are issued, meaning that AIN
eartags could only be issued to registered premises that have PINs.
AINs would be correlated with PINs using the AINMS, which we would
define in Sec. Sec. 71.1, 77.2, 79.1, and 80.1 as a Web-based system
maintained by APHIS to keep records of authorized AIN devices, the
allocation of AINs to authorized manufacturers of AIN devices, the
distribution of AIN devices to premises, and the termination of AIN
tags. The definition would further state that the system could also be
used to track the disposition of other official identification devices.
(Further information regarding the AINMS can be found at <A HREF=”http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_id/ain_mngt_sys.shtml”>http://
animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal_id/ain_mngt_sys.shtml</A>.) AINs
used on official eartags attached to sheep and goats in the NSEP would
also have to be correlated with PINs and, where applicable, FINs in the
National Scrapie Database.
Additionally, in Sec. 79.1, the proposed definition of official
eartag would codify two identification numbering systems that are
currently being used in the NSEP but that are not defined in the
existing regulations. The change would recognize the current practice
of employing the FIN, which is discussed in greater detail below, on
official eartags for sheep and goats if used in conjunction with a
producer’s livestock production numbering system to provide a unique
identification number. The proposed definition of official eartag in
Sec. 79.1 would also recognize a unique eight-character number,
already in use in the NSEP, composed of the State postal abbreviation
followed by two letters and four numbers for use on official eartags
for sheep and goats. With either of these numbering systems, the
letters “I,” “O,” or “Q” could only be used in the State postal
abbreviation due to the possibility that they could be confused with
the numbers “0” or “1.”
Finally, while the existing definition of official eartag allows
for the use of the National Uniform Eartagging System on such tags, it
does not specify the format to be used. Because either an eight- or
nine-character format may be employed, as discussed below, the
definitions of official eartag that would appear in the different parts
covered by this proposed rule vary slightly, with each specifying the
National Uniform Eartagging System format to be used, where use of the
system is applicable, for the particular species and the particular
animal disease program that are the subject of the part.

Flock Identification Number

At this time, the NSEP furnishes eartags to sheep and goat
producers that bear a numbering system that is somewhat similar to the
premises-based numbering system (a PIN combined with the producer’s
livestock production numbering system) discussed above. In lieu of a
PIN, however, these eartags are imprinted with a unique FIN. This
number, unlike the PIN, represents an animal group that is associated
with one or more locations rather than a designator for a location. The
FIN serves the sheep and goat industries well in their disease control
and eradication efforts. The existing regulations, however, while
allowing for the use of the FIN on eartags for sheep and goats in the
NSEP, do not define the term as they do other types of identification
numbers, such as the AIN and the PIN. Therefore, to codify current
practices and help ensure uniformity and consistency in the use of
flock identification numbering, we are proposing to add a definition of
flock identification number (FIN) to the general requirements for
interstate movement in 9 CFR part 71, to the scrapie-related
requirements in part 79, and to the Johne’s disease requirements in
part 80. Specifically, in Sec. Sec. 71.1, 79.1, and 80.1, we would
define flock identification number (FIN) as a nationally unique number
assigned by a State or Federal animal health authority to a group of
animals that are managed as a unit on one or more premises and are
under the same ownership. The definition would state that the FIN must
begin with the State postal abbreviation, must have no more than nine
alphanumeric characters, and must not contain the characters
“I”,”O”, or “Q” other than as part of the State postal
abbreviation. As noted earlier, the restriction on the use of those
letters is intended to prevent errors that could result from confusing
them with the numbers “0” and “1.” The proposed definition would
further note that FINs would be linked in the National Scrapie Database
to one or more PINs and could be used in conjunction with an animal
number unique within the flock to provide a distinctive official
identification number for an animal, or could be used in conjunction
with the date and a sequence number to provide a GIN for a group of
animals when group identification is allowed. As noted above, we would
also amend the definition of official eartag in Sec. Sec. 71.1, 79.1,
and 80.1 so that it would include the FIN on the list of numbering
systems that may be used on official eartags, thereby codifying the
existing practice.

National Uniform Eartagging System

The definition of official eartag in Sec. Sec. 71.1, 77.2, 78.1,
79.1, and 80.1 currently recognizes the National Uniform Eartagging
System as a means of identifying individual animals in commerce. The
system has been in use for many years, but the existing regulations do
not define the term or specify a particular format. To codify existing
practices, thereby helping to ensure greater standardization and
uniformity in the use of this numbering system, we are proposing to add
a

[[Page 1637]]

definition of National Uniform Eartagging System to the sections cited
above, with the exception of Sec. 79.1, since that numbering system is
not used in the NSEP. (The definition of official eartag in Sec. 79.1
would be amended to remove the option of using the National Uniform
Eartagging System in the NSEP.) We would define National Uniform
Eartagging System as a numbering system for the official identification
of individual animals in the United States providing a nationally
unique identification number for each animal. An eight- or nine-
character alphanumeric format, consisting of a two-number State or
territory code, followed by two or three letters and four additional
numbers, would be required. (The eight-character format is generally
reserved for use in small livestock, such as sheep and goats, though
not, as noted above, in the NSEP.) The proposed definition would also
note that individual APHIS disease control programs may specify which
National Uniform Eartagging System format to use.

Removal of Official Identification Devices

Current Sec. 71.22, which was added to the regulations in the
November 2004 interim rule, states that official identification devices
are intended to provide permanent identification of livestock and to
ensure the ability to find the source of animal disease outbreaks and
prohibits the intentional removal of such devices except at the time of
slaughter.
We are proposing to allow for removal of official identification
devices not only at slaughter but also at other points of termination,
such as rendering facilities or diagnostic laboratories. We would also
allow for removal of official identification devices in compliance with
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations regarding the
collection of all manmade animal identification and the correlation of
such with carcasses through final inspection and for removal as
otherwise authorized by the Administrator. These proposed changes would
simply codify existing practices and would not negatively affect animal
traceability.

Miscellaneous

Current Sec. 71.19(b)(7) states that slaughter swine and feeder
swine may be identified by means of an eartag or tattoo bearing a PIN.
We are proposing to amend that paragraph to distinguish between the
identification required for each type of swine. Tattoos are a less
effective means of identifying adult slaughter swine than are eartags
because the vast majority of such animals are skinned as part of the
preparation of the animal carcass for meat processing. We are therefore
proposing to amend Sec. 71.19(b)(7) to require that, after a 1-year
phase-in period, when the PIN is used to identify adult slaughter
swine, the swine would have to be identified by an APHIS-approved
eartag bearing the U.S. shield. The identification requirements for
feeder swine would not change, however, since tattooing has proved to
be a very reliable method of identification for those animals.

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.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
potential effects of the proposed changes on small entities. We do not
currently have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of
the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are
inviting comments concerning potential effects. In particular, we are
interested in determining the potential costs to eartag manufacturers
and livestock producers.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations to achieve greater
standardization and uniformity of official numbering systems and
eartags and to codify certain existing identification methods. We
propose to remove the option of using AINs that begin with the alpha
characters USA or a manufacturer’s code and only recognize as official
those that begin with an 840 prefix. This change would apply to AINs
imprinted on AIN tags applied to animals 1 year or more after the date
on which this proposed rule is finalized. In addition, we are proposing
to require that all new PINs issued on or after the effective date of
this rule use the seven-character alphanumeric code format. Official
eartags using a premises-based numbering system employing a PIN that
are issued after a 1-year phase-in period will be required to use the
seven-character alphanumeric code format as well. We are also proposing
to require that, after a 1-year phase-in period, all official eartags
applied to animals must bear the U.S. shield, and we would specify that
the shield could only be used on official identification devices
approved by APHIS. We would also add to the regulations definitions of
flock identification number (FIN), National Uniform Eartagging System,
and the AINMS. We do not expect that the addition of the AINMS to the
regulations will cause any significant economic burden to any entities
that may be affected by this rulemaking. The AINMS has been used
successfully, and without causing difficulty for users, to record the
distribution of over 10 million official tags by industry cooperators.
By requiring the use of only the 840 prefix in the AIN for AIN tags
applied to animals 1 year or more after the date on which this proposed
rule is finalized, we anticipate there would be enough advance notice
to allow the transition to take place without placing a significant
economic burden on livestock producers or on manufacturers of eartags
using the AIN. Since it is not the intent of this proposed rule to set
a date by which AIN eartags for all adult animals must conform to the
840 format, there should be few, if any, animals that would need to be
retagged. As noted earlier, it is expected to be many years before all
animals have an AIN with the 840 prefix. For instance, breeding beef
cattle typically live for 10 years or more before they are slaughtered.
Requiring the use of the 840 prefix for the AIN is not expected to
have significant economic effects on the livestock industry. Potential
costs would include reformatting expenses for eartag manufacturers as
the USA and manufacturer’s code numbering systems are eliminated.
Additionally, there may be obsolete inventory costs in the form of
stocked eartags that were imprinted with one of the eliminated
numbering systems. These potential costs may be passed on to livestock
producers that purchase the new eartags. We do not have data to
quantitatively estimate these potential costs at this time, and welcome
public comment from affected entities with this information. However,
we would not expect these potential costs to be large, because most
adult animals would not need to be retagged, unless a tag is lost and
needs to be replaced, and because the use of the AIN would not be
required and other animal identification numbering systems currently
recognized in the regulations for use on official eartags, such as the
National Uniform Eartagging System and one of the premises-based
numbering systems, would continue to be recognized as official.
Moreover, transitioning to the use of standardized AINs would enhance
APHIS’ animal disease response capabilities, which would benefit
livestock industries.
The current regulations recognize two forms of PINs for the
official

[[Page 1638]]

identification of premises where livestock or poultry are housed. One
consists of a postal code prefix of the State in which the premises is
located, followed by a number assigned to the premises by a State
animal health official. A second, more recent format utilizes a seven-
character alphanumeric code that was developed through discussions with
industry and producer representatives. At this time, more than 480,000
PINs using the 7-character alphanumeric format have been issued, while
the older format is being phased out. The use of a single numbering
system to identify premises is essential in enhancing and contributing
to the effectiveness of USDA’s disease-tracing and emergency response
capabilities. Therefore, we are proposing to require that all PINs
issued on or after the effective date of this rule use the newer seven-
character alphanumeric format. This action is not expected to have a
significant economic effect on producers of livestock or poultry, as it
is just a change in program operations, and would require minimal
expenditures on the part of producers. For example, some producers who
are transitioning from postal-code to seven-character PINs may have to
buy additional tattoo digits, depending upon what tattoo digits they
already have, but that expense, if any, would be very small.
Additionally, as with the standardization of the AINs, there may be
minimal costs associated with the transition away from the postal-code
eartags for those producers who use a premises-based numbering system
to identify their animals.
We would also require that, after a 1-year phase-in period, all
official eartags would have to bear the U.S. shield. It is possible
that there could be some reformatting costs for tag manufacturers as a
result of this requirement, though it is important to note that eartags
imprinted with the 840 prefix already bear the U.S. shield. We do not
have data to quantitatively estimate these potential costs at this
time. We do not anticipate costs to producers resulting from this
proposed requirement, but we welcome comments and information from the
public on this issue.
Currently, the NSEP furnishes eartags to sheep and goat producers
that use a numbering system that is similar to the premises-based
numbering system (a PIN combined with the producer’s livestock
production numbering system). However, in place of the PIN, NSEP
imprints these eartags with a unique FIN. We are proposing to add a
definition of flock identification number (FIN) to the regulations and
amend the definition of official eartag to include the FIN on the list
of numbering systems that may be used on official eartags. Because
these proposed changes simply incorporate current practices into the
regulations, we do not expect them to have an economic effect on the
sheep and goat industries.
The definition of official eartag currently allows for the use of
the National Uniform Eartagging System as a means of identifying
individual animals in commerce. However, existing regulations do not
define the term or specify the format. To provide for greater
standardization and uniformity, we are proposing to add a definition of
National Uniform Eartagging System, as discussed above. Because this
proposed change, like the addition of the FIN definition, simply
incorporates current practices into the regulations, we do not expect
that there will be any economic impact on entities potentially affected
by this proposed rule.
We expect that all the proposed changes discussed above would
benefit affected entities by allowing for greater flexibility in some
instances while enhancing traceability in the event of a disease
outbreak.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies specifically
consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities. Entities
that could be economically affected by this proposed rule include
eartag manufacturers, slaughtering or animal processing establishments,
and livestock producers.
The proposed rule may have an effect on manufacturers of animal
eartags. The U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) small-entity
size standard for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code 326199, which comprises plastic product manufacturers not
otherwise identified by NAICS code, is 500 or fewer employees.\2\
According to the 2002 Economic Census, there were 7,892 establishments
in this category engaged in the manufacturing of plastic products, with
over 492,000 paid employees.\3\ Of these 7,892 establishments, we know
neither the number of operations engaged in the manufacture of plastic
eartags, nor the size of these operations as it pertains to SBA size
standards.
—————————————————————————

\2\ Table of Size Standards based on NAICS 2002. Washington, DC:
U.S. Small Business Administration, effective October 1, 2007. Note:
NAICS code 326199 comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing plastic products (except film, sheet, bags, profile
shapes, pipes, pipe fittings, laminates, foam products, bottles,
plumbing fixtures, and resilient floor coverings).
\3\ 2002 Economic Census–Manufacturing Series. Washington, DC:
U.S. Census Bureau, December 2004.
—————————————————————————

In addition, there could be some indirect effects on producers of
livestock in the event that any potential costs to the manufacturers of
eartags are passed on to producers in the form of higher eartag prices.
In 2006, there were a total of 971,400 cattle operations, 65,540 hog
and pig operations, and 69,090 sheep and lamb operations.\4\ The
overwhelming majority of these operations would be considered small
entities according to SBA standards.\5\
—————————————————————————

\4\ USDA-NASS, 2007 Agricultural Statistics, Tables 7-18, 7-26,
and 7-53. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service.
\5\ The small entity definition for livestock producers (NAICS
codes: 112111, 112120, 112210, 112410, and 112420) is one that has
$750,000 or less in annual receipts, according to the SBA’s Table of
Size Standards.
—————————————————————————

All of the changes contained in this proposed rule are intended to
strengthen USDA’s ability to respond effectively in the event of a
disease outbreak or other animal health event. The alternative to the
proposed rule would have been to leave the regulations unchanged,
thereby limiting the effectiveness of USDA’s disease control programs.
This was not considered a viable option; therefore, the no-action
alternative was rejected.

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 contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 71

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

[[Page 1639]]

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.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 71, 77, 78, 79, and 80
as follows:

PART 71–GENERAL PROVISIONS

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.

2. Section 71.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, official identification
device or method, and premises identification number (PIN) and adding
definitions of Animal Identification Number Management System (AINMS),
flock identification number (FIN), and National Uniform Eartagging
System in alphabetical order 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. Only the AIN beginning
with the 840 prefix will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags
applied to animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date
of final rule].
Animal Identification Number Management System (AINMS). A Web-based
system maintained by APHIS to keep records of authorized AIN devices,
the allocation of AINs to authorized manufacturers of AIN devices, the
distribution of AIN devices to premises, and the termination of AIN
tags. The AINMS may also be used for tracking the disposition of other
official identification devices.
* * * * *
Flock identification number (FIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State or Federal animal health authority to a group of
animals that are managed as a unit on one or more premises and are
under the same ownership. The FIN must begin with the State postal
abbreviation, must have no more than nine alphanumeric characters, and
must not contain the letters “I,” “O,” or “Q” other than as part
of the State postal abbreviation. FINs will be linked in the National
Scrapie Database to one or more premises identification numbers and may
be used in conjunction with an animal number unique within the flock to
provide a distinctive official identification number for an animal, or
may be used in conjunction with the date and a sequence number to
provide a group/lot identification number for a group of animals when
group identification is permitted.
* * * * *
National Uniform Eartagging System. A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The National Uniform Eartagging System employs an eight- or nine-
character alphanumeric format, consisting of a two-number State or
territory code, followed by two or three letters and four additional
numbers. Official APHIS disease control programs may specify which
format to employ.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS to provide
unique identification for individual animals. Beginning [Insert date 1
year after effective date of final rule], all official eartags applied
to animals 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. A record of all official eartags issued or distributed
to premises in conjunction with a Federal disease program must be
maintained by the State where the premises to which they are issued are
located. The record must adequately correlate each official eartag
number with the premises identification number (PIN) to which it is
issued or distributed. Such correlation must be done using the Animal
Identification Number Management System (AINMS) or other recordkeeping
systems approved by the Administrator. Specific requirements for the
distribution of official eartags bearing the Animal identification
number (AIN) are provided in paragraph (2) below. Official eartags for
sheep and goats must be approved for use in the scrapie program in
accordance with Sec. 79.2(f) of this subchapter. Numbers applied to
official eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN). AIN eartags attached to any
animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of final
rule] must display an AIN with an 840 prefix. These numbers must be
correlated with the premises identification number of the premises to
which they are issued using the AINMS.
(3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines a 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. Official eartags using a
premises-based numbering system that are issued on or after [Insert
date 1 year after effective date of final rule] must employ the seven-
character alphanumeric PIN format.
(4) Flock-based number system. The flock-based number system
combines a flock identification number (FIN), as defined in this
section, with a producer’s livestock production numbering system to
provide a unique identification number. The FIN and the production
number must both appear and be distinct on the official tag and may not
include the letters “I,” “O,” or “Q” other than as part of a
State postal abbreviation.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of animals in commerce.
Official identification device or method. A means of officially
identifying an animal or group of animals using devices or methods
approved by the Administrator, including, but not limited to, official
tags, tattoos, and registered brands when accompanied by a certificate
of inspection from a recognized brand inspection authority. The U.S.
shield is reserved only for use on official identification devices
approved by APHIS and may not be used on any other devices.
* * * * *
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by

[[Page 1640]]

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. Premises identification numbers issued on or
after [Insert effective date of final rule] shall consist of 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.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 71.19, paragraph (b)(7) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 71.19 Identification of swine in interstate commerce.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) For adult swine moving directly to slaughter, an eartag bearing
the premises identification number assigned by the State animal health
official to the premises on which the swine originated, provided the
eartag has been approved by APHIS and, beginning [Insert date 1 year
after effective date of final rule], bears the U.S. shield. For feeder
swine, an eartag or tattoo bearing the premises identification number
assigned by the State animal health official to the premises on which
the swine originated; and
* * * * *
4. Section 71.22 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 71.22 Removal and loss of official identification devices.

Official identification devices are intended to provide permanent
identification of livestock and to ensure the ability to find the
source of animal disease outbreaks. Removal of these devices, including
devices applied to imported animals in their countries of origin and
recognized by the Administrator as official, is prohibited except at
the time of slaughter; at other points of termination, such as
rendering facilities or diagnostic laboratories; in compliance with
Food Safety and Inspection Service regulations regarding the collection
of all manmade identification and the correlation of such with
carcasses through final inspection; or as otherwise authorized by the
Administrator. If an official identification device is lost and it is
necessary to retag an animal with a new official number, every effort
should be made to correlate the new official number with the previous
official number of the animal. Official identification devices are not
to be sold or otherwise transferred from the premises to which they
were originally issued to another premises without authorization by
APHIS.

PART 77–TUBERCULOSIS

5. 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.

6. Section 77.2 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and premises
identification number (PIN) and adding definitions of Animal
Identification Number Management System (AINMS) and National Uniform
Eartagging System in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 77.2 Definitions.

[[Page 1641]]

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. Premises identification numbers issued on or
after [Insert effective date of final rule] shall consist of 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

7. 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.

8. Section 78.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and official
identification device or method and adding definitions of Animal
Identification Number Management System (AINMS) and National Uniform
Eartagging System in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 78.1 Definitions.

PART 79–SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND GOATS

9. 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.

10. Section 79.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, official identification
device or method, and premises identification number (PIN) and adding
definitions of Animal Identification Number Management System (AINMS)
and flock identification number (FIN) in alphabetical order to read as
follows:

Sec. 79.1 Definitions.

[[Page 1642]]

are under the same ownership. The FIN must begin with the State postal
abbreviation, must have no more than nine alphanumeric characters, and
must not contain the letters “I,” “O,” or “Q” other than as part
of the State postal abbreviation. FINs will be linked in the National
Scrapie Database to one or more premises identification numbers and may
be used in conjunction with an animal number unique within the flock to
provide a unique official identification number for an animal, or may
be used in conjunction with the date and a sequence number to provide a
group/lot identification number for a group of animals when group
identification is permitted.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag approved for use on sheep
and/or goats by APHIS in accordance with Sec. 79.2(f). Beginning
[Insert date 1 year after effective date of final rule], all official
eartags applied to animals 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. Numbers to be applied to official
eartags for sheep and goats must be correlated with the corresponding
premises identification number and, where applicable, flock
identification number in the National Scrapie Database. The numbers
must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) Animal identification number (AIN). AIN eartags attached to any
animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of final
rule] must display an AIN with an 840 prefix. These numbers must be
correlated with the premises identification number of the premises to
which they are issued using the Animal Identification Number Management
System (AINMS) and, if applicable, the flock identification number in
the National Scrapie Database.
(2) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines a 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 and be distinct on the official tag. PINs or
production numbers that contain the letters “I” or “O” may not be
used as the primary identifier on official sheep or goat eartags.
Official eartags using a premises-based numbering system that are
issued on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of final
rule] must employ the seven-character alphanumeric PIN format.
(3) A flock identification number (FIN), as defined in this
section, is used in conjunction with a producer’s livestock production
numbering system to provide a unique identification number. The FIN and
the production number must both appear and be distinct on the official
tag and may not include the letters “I,” “O,” or “Q” other than
as part of a State postal abbreviation. The FIN must be correlated in
the National Scrapie Database with one or more PINs.
(4) A unique eight-character number composed of the State postal
abbreviation followed by two alphanumeric characters (not including the
letters “I,” “O,” or “Q”) and four numbers.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the identification of sheep and goats in commerce.
* * * * *
Official identification device or method. A means of officially
identifying an animal or group of animals using devices or methods
approved by the Administrator, including, but not limited to, official
tags, tattoos, and registered brands when accompanied by a certificate
of inspection from a recognized brand inspection authority. The U.S.
shield is reserved only for use on official identification devices
approved by APHIS and may not be used on any other devices.
* * * * *
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. Premises identification numbers issued on or
after [Insert effective date of final rule] shall consist of 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

11. 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.

12. Section 80.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), official eartag, and premises
identification number (PIN) and adding definitions of Animal
Identification Number Management System (AINMS), Flock Identification
Number (FIN), and National Uniform Eartagging System in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
* * * * *

Sec. 80.1 Definitions.

[[Page 1643]]

and may be used in conjunction with an animal number unique within the
flock to provide a unique official identification number for an animal,
or may be used in conjunction with the date and a sequence number to
provide a group/lot identification number for a group of animals when
group identification is permitted.
* * * * *
National Uniform Eartagging System. A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States
providing a nationally unique identification number for each animal.
The National Uniform Eartagging System employs an eight- or nine-
character alphanumeric format, consisting of a two-number State or
territory code, followed by two or three letters and four additional
numbers. Official APHIS disease programs may specify which format to
employ.
Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS to provide
unique identification for individual animals. Beginning [Insert date 1
year after effective date of final rule], all official eartags applied
to animals 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. All official eartags used in Federal disease programs
must be correlated with the premises identification number of the
premises to which they are issued using the Animal Identification
Number Management System (AINMS) or other recordkeeping systems
approved by the Administrator. Official eartags for sheep and goats
must be approved for use in the National Scrapie Eradication Program in
accordance with Sec. 79.2(f) of this subchapter. Numbers applied to
official eartags must adhere to one of the following numbering systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System. The Johne’s program
requires the use of the nine-character format for cattle.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN). AIN eartags attached to any
animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of final
rule] must display an AIN with an 840 prefix. These numbers must be
correlated with the premises identification number of the premises to
which they are issued using the AINMS.
(3) Premises-based number system. The premises-based number system
combines a 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. Official eartags using a
premises-based numbering system that are issued on or after [Insert
date 1 year after effective date of final rule] must employ the seven-
character alphanumeric PIN format.
(4) A flock identification number (FIN), as defined in this
section, used in conjunction with a producer’s livestock production
numbering system to provide a unique identification number. The FIN and
the production number must both appear and be distinct on the official
tag and may not include the letters “I,” “O,” or “Q” other than
as part of a State postal abbreviation.
(5) In the case of sheep and goats, a unique eight-digit number
composed of the State postal abbreviation followed by two letters (not
including “I,” “O,” or “Q”) and four numbers.
(6) 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 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. Premises identification numbers issued on or
after [Insert effective date of final rule] shall consist of 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 7th day of January 2009.
Cindy J. Smith,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9-353 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P