Supplemental Notice to WSR 10-12-074.

     Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 10-02-112.

     Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: Chapter 16-30 WAC, Restricted feedlots and restricted holding facilities.

     Hearing Location(s): Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street S.E., Second Floor, Conference Room 259, Olympia, WA 98504, on September 16, 2010, at 1:00 p.m.

     Date of Intended Adoption: September 30, 2010.

     Submit Written Comments to: Teresa Norman, P.O. Box 42560, Olympia, WA 98504-2560, e-mail WSDARulesComments@agr.wa.gov, fax (360) 902-2092.

     Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact WSDA receptionist by September 7, 2010, TTY (800) 833-6388 or 711.

     Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: The department held hearings in Olympia and Ellensburg on April 29 and May 10, 2010, to accept testimony on proposed amendments to chapter 16-30 WAC, Restricted feedlots and restricted holding facilities. Based on testimony received the department has decided to make additional changes to the proposed language and conduct another hearing.

     The department proposes to amend chapter 16-30 WAC to establish three types of restricted holding facilities. The first type of holding facility is one where imported animals are held in quarantine until they meet animal health import requirements. The second type of holding facility is a dry feed yard with no provision for grazing where cattle that have been imported into the state and are destined for slaughter only are confined for feeding. These cattle can only be moved to a federally inspected slaughter plant. The third type of holding facility is a holding facility for permanently quarantined animals.

     Reasons Supporting Proposal: These changes are necessary to prevent the spread of disease in the state and to protect the public's health and welfare.

     Statutory Authority for Adoption: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW.

     Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 16.36 RCW.

     Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.

     Name of Proponent: Washington state department of agriculture, governmental.

     Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting and Implementation: Paul Kohrs, DVM, Olympia, (360) 902-1835; and Enforcement: Leonard Eldridge, DVM, Olympia, (360) 902-1878.

     A small business economic impact statement has been prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW.

     Washington state has a vital and growing livestock industry, the value of which in Washington state is $1.6 billion. This industry growth has placed additional financial burdens on WSDA as the industry has requested WSDA to monitor livestock import activities so that diseases such as tuberculosis (TB), brucellosis, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and foot and mouth disease are not introduced into the state. BSE is a disease of adult cattle that are exposed at a young age.

     The border between the United States and Canada had been closed to adult breeding cattle due to the BSE positive cow found in Washington state in December of 2003. WSDA monitoring became especially critical after the United States/Canadian border reopened on November 17, 2007, to breeding cattle that were born after March 1, 1999, as several recent BSE cases in Canada were born after March 1, 1999. When the United States/Canadian border opened, monitoring became critical to determine the origin of the livestock for disease trace-back purposes.

     To understand the economic impact of BSE, the one BSE positive cow that was illegally imported into Washington in December of 2003 cost (at a minimum) $11 billion to the national beef industry and the costs are still being tallied. The economic loss is mainly due to markets that are still closed to United States beef imports.

     Washington state has been free of TB and brucellosis for over twenty years. When affected herds are found for either of these diseases in a state, the state loses its United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) tuberculosis/brucellosis "free" status and USDA places mandatory testing requirements upon the affected state. USDA has proposed changing its approach to addressing these long term program diseases. Both of these diseases are near eradication and resources are being focused on apparent problem areas. Whatever the outcome of these changes, there will be significant costs to our industry as outlined below when an affected herd is identified and the investigation is completed. This creates a financial burden on the industry because producers have to pay for additional testing and handling fees and the value of the animal drops at point of sale by an estimated $0.06 - $0.10 cents per pound due to increased movement restrictions and testing requirements put on by other states and other countries.

     Once a state loses its TB or brucellosis "free" status, it is difficult to regain the "free" status because the disease is very difficult to eradicate. The time frame to regain "free" status depends upon the necessary investigations and the ability to trace the movement of livestock.

     The table below describes the potential economic impact of some states that have lost either their TB or brucellosis "free" status. The economic impact of the restricted feedlot fees would be economically insignificant as compared to the loss of the "free" status for the industry as a whole.

State	Disease	Testing Impact $ (Lost Status)	Lost Value @ Point of Sale (Lost Status)	Depopulation
Washington (Disease Free)	Tuberculosis
New Mexico (Lost Status) USDA FY 2007	Tuberculosis	$6 - $8 per head Testing only	$.05 - $.10 per pound Example: 600 pound animal would decrease to $30 - $60 per head	$22 million (USDA)
Minnesota (Lost Status) USDA FY 2008	Tuberculosis	$6 - $8 per head Testing only	$.05 - $.10 per pound Example: 600 pound animal would decrease to $30 - $60 per head	$6 million (State legislature buy-out program: $75.00 per head)
California (Lost Status) USDA FY '08-'09	Tuberculosis	$6 - $8 per head Testing only	$.05 - $.10 per pound Example: 600 pound animal would decrease to $30 - $60 per head	$55 million (USDA)
Montana (Lost Status) USDA FY 2008	Brucellosis	$6 - $8 per head $80 million	$.05 - $.10 per pound Example: 600 pound animal would decrease to $30 - $60 per head

     Another major concern is the potential for an accidental or intentional introduction of a foreign animal disease, such as foot and mouth disease, into the state. It has been estimated that for each hour this disease goes undetected it will cost the United States economy $10 million. The proposed rule, chapter 16-30 WAC, Restricted feedlots and restricted holding facilities will allow WSDA to better monitor livestock imports and reduce the risk to industry.

     Estimated Costs of Proposed Rule to Small Livestock Businesses: Under WSDA rules, industry may establish restricted holding facilities. The holding facilities provide industry with additional flexibility in meeting Washington state animal import requirements. Use of such a facility is not mandatory and producers always have the option of meeting import requirements prior to entry without endangering our disease "free" status as outlined above. The proposed rule will allow WSDA to recover the costs associated with monitoring all categories of restricted holding facilities.

     When the legislature granted the department the authority to obtain fee for service in the 2008 legislature with the passage of RCW 16.36.023, it was estimated that four to six restricted holding facilities would be established for tuberculosis and brucellosis testing and vaccination. Since this law went into effect the need for these holding facilities has increased with the reopening of the United States/Canada border to breeding cattle. WSDA oversight is necessary to ensure that animals entering Washington state meet WSDA's animal health entry requirements or that untested and unvaccinated animals remain in slaughter channels or in a category three restricted holding facility.

     There are presently ten restricted holding facilities licensed in the state and there is indication that this number will grow. The present holding facilities have accepted any economic impact since they have been established.

     In a very limited number of cases the department may need to extend the life of a quarantine which is proposed as a category 3 restricted holding facility (lifetime quarantine). Such quarantines do not disproportionately impact small businesses due to the fact that other alternatives such as removal or meeting import requirements do exist. The department finds it necessary to make regular visits to ensure that conditions of the category three restricted holding facility are being followed and the health of the animal(s) is being maintained. These costs may include time and mileage necessary for regular surveillance on the category three restricted holding facility to ensure bio-security and isolation protocols are being adhered to, observation of testing or treatment of animals to satisfy chain of custody requirements are met and general evaluation of the health of the animal(s).

     Compliance Requirements: The proposed restricted holding facility designation does not affect importation compliance requirements. In actuality, when requested by the producer, the restricted holding facility designation option makes interstate health requirement compliance easier.

     Professional Services Required to Comply: WSDA does not anticipate that the proposed rule will not necessitate the creation of a need for new professional services.

     Cost of Compliance: The cost of establishing a restricted holding facility will include the initial application fee ($200), annual renewal fee ($100), and the cost of inspections to monitor compliance at $85.00/hr and mileage at established rates. This cost will be capped at $1,500.00 per licensed category two restricted holding facility for the license period unless there is a violation discovered. In the case that a violation occurs the cap will be removed so costs can be recovered to complete the investigation (SB 6299).

     Other Actions Taken by the Department That Will Contain Costs:

     •     WSDA combining trips with other inspections and offering the requesting party the option to take advantage of doing several inspections in the same day, if scheduling permits.

     •     In the case an extended quarantine is needed, the department will always strive to offer other options to the owner/producer that would allow the release of the quarantine without long term supervision and the costs associated with it.

     Justification: According to the Small Business Administration, a small business is defined as a one with less than fifty employees. Several of the category two restricted holding facilities would not be classified as a small business within this guideline. The Code of Federal Regulations further defines restricted feedlots as a small business as a restricted feedlot with less than $2 million dollars of gross revenue. This eliminates most of the restricted feedlots that would be affected by this rule. The remaining restricted feedlots that are not eliminated by these criteria would be able to test and vaccinate incoming animals to meet the import requirements for less than the $1500 cap that is proposed. The other factor is that this fee would be a very small percent (.075%) of the gross revenues and very minor when compared to the impact of the loss of "free" status from a disease outbreak.

     A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Dr. Paul Kohrs, 1111 Washington Street S.E., Olympia, WA 98504-2560, phone (360) 902-1835, fax (360) 902-2087, e-mail pkohrs@agr.wa.gov.

     RCW 19.85.030 (1)(a) requires that an agency prepare a small business economic impact statement (SBEIS) for proposed rules that impose a more than minor cost on businesses in an industry. The department has analyzed the economic effects of the proposed revisions and has concluded that they are negligible costs on the regulated industry and, therefore, a formal SBEIS is not required.

     A cost-benefit analysis is not required under RCW 34.05.328. The Washington state department of agriculture is not a listed agency under RCW 34.05.328 (5)(a)(i).

June 23, 2010

Leonard E. Eldridge

State Veterinarian

OTS-3115.2

AMENDATORY SECTION(Amending WSR 08-01-095, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08)

WAC 16-30-010   Definitions.   In addition to the definitions found in RCW 16.36.005, the following definitions apply to this chapter:

     "Department" means the Washington state department of agriculture (WSDA).

     "Director" means the director of the department of agriculture or the director's authorized representative.

     "Official individual identification" means identifying an animal or group of animals using devices or methods including, but not limited to, official tags, tattoos, and registered brands when accompanied by a certificate of brand inspection from a brand inspection authority who is recognized by the director.

     "Restricted ((cattle)) animals" means ((cattle)) animals being held in a restricted holding facility or a restricted feedlot.

     (("Restricted feedlot" means a dry feed yard with no provision for grazing where cattle specified in this rule are confined for feeding and kept separate and apart from all other cattle.

     "Restricted holding facility" means a dry feed yard with no provision for grazing where cattle are held to meet import test requirements.

     "Test-eligible" means bulls over six months of age, brucellosis vaccinated female dairy cattle over twenty months of age, and brucellosis vaccinated beef breed female cattle over twenty-four months of age.))

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 08-01-095, § 16-30-010, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08. Statutory Authority: Chapter 16.36 RCW. 99-14-032, § 16-30-010, filed 6/29/99, effective 7/30/99. Statutory Authority: RCW 16.36.040 and 16.36.050. 89-06-014 (Order 1995), § 16-30-010, filed 2/23/89; 88-05-003 (Order 1964), § 16-30-010, filed 2/5/88; Order 955, Regulation 1, filed 8/31/64; Order 851, Regulation 1, effective 7/19/61.]

     (2) Restricted feedlots must meet the following standards:

     (a) All cattle in a restricted feedlot must remain in slaughter channels.

     (b) Cattle in the restricted feedlot must not share water or feeding facilities accessible to other areas.

     (((b))) (c) Restricted feedlots must be clearly identified as such by signs permanently affixed at all corners stating "restricted feeding area" in letters a minimum of six inches in height.

     (((c))) (d) There must be a minimum of thirty feet between restricted feedlots and other lots and facilities.

     (((d))) (e) No common fences and gates may be used.

     (((2))) (3) The purpose of a restricted feedlot is to accept for feeding purposes with no provision for grazing or commingling with unrestricted cattle:

     (a) Female cattle from a Class Free state that are not officially brucellosis vaccinated and not knowingly exposed to brucellosis;

     (b) Cattle that enter Washington state on a brand certificate that includes the entry permit number and without a certificate of veterinary inspection; and

     (c) Cattle imported from Canada. These cattle must be confined to the initial restricted feedlot until moved to slaughter.

     (((3))) (4)(a) Restricted feedlots may buy and import cattle from a Class A state if the cattle do not originate from a herd known to be exposed to brucellosis. Female cattle entering a restricted feedlot from a Class A state must be:

     (i) Officially brucellosis vaccinated; or

     (ii) Brucellosis tested negative within thirty days prior to movement.

     (b) Cattle may not be imported from restricted feedlots that accept cattle known to be exposed to brucellosis.

     (((4))) (5) The classification of states and areas as Class Free and Class A is designated by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in Title 9 CFR Part 78.41 (January 1, 2006) and is defined in Brucellosis Eradication: Uniform Methods and Rules, effective October 1, 2003.

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 08-01-095, § 16-30-025, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08. Statutory Authority: RCW 16.36.040 and 16.36.050. 89-06-014 (Order 1995), § 16-30-025, filed 2/23/89.]

     (1) There shall be no contact between animals not also similarly restricted.

     (2) No cattle shall be removed from the restricted feedlot except to a federally inspected slaughter plant, a slaughter plant of like status, or a restricted feedlot of like status.

     (3) The restricted feedlot will be maintained in a condition that follows common industry practices to mitigate disease risk.

     (4) The owner or manager of a restricted feedlot will notify the department ((will be notified)) immediately of any outbreak of any infectious or contagious disease.

     (5) The disposal of dead livestock will be in accordance with the laws relating to the disposal of dead livestock and in accordance with chapter 16-25 WAC.

     (6) Accurate records will be kept for six years accounting for all cattle entering and leaving the restricted feedlot. Records must be open for review by authorized department of agriculture personnel during normal business hours, and must be provided to the department upon the director's request.

     (7) Proper facilities shall be provided for inspection of brands, branding, and identification of cattle.

     (8) The state veterinarian has the authority to enter the restricted feedlot at any reasonable time to conduct tests, examinations, and inspections.

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 09-03-018, § 16-30-030, filed 1/9/09, effective 2/9/09; 08-01-095, § 16-30-030, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08. Statutory Authority: RCW 16.36.040 and 16.36.050. 89-06-014 (Order 1995), § 16-30-030, filed 2/23/89; 88-05-003 (Order 1964), § 16-30-030, filed 2/5/88. Statutory Authority: Chapter 16.36 RCW. 83-07-028 (Order 1790), § 16-30-030, filed 3/14/83; Order 955, Regulation 3, filed 8/31/64; Order 851, Regulation 3, effective 7/19/61, but corrected for clerical error by filing dated 7/20/61.]

     (5) Restricted holding facilities must be clearly identified as such by signs permanently affixed at all corners stating "restricted holding facility" in letters a minimum of six inches in height.)) state veterinarian. Fees associated with restricted holding facilities are referenced under chapter 16-91 WAC.

     (2) There are three categories of restricted holding facilities.

     (a) A category 1 restricted holding facility is a facility where imported animals are held in quarantine until they meet animal health import requirements.

     (b) A category 2 restricted holding facility is a dry feed yard with no provision for grazing where cattle that have been imported into the state and are destined for slaughter only are confined for feeding. Cattle in a category 2 restricted holding facility must remain in slaughter channels and move only to a federally inspected slaughter plant or other restricted facilities of like status.

     (c) A category 3 restricted holding facility is a holding facility for permanently quarantined animals.

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 08-01-095, § 16-30-035, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08.]

     (2) Additional requirements for a category 1 restricted holding facility. In addition to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section for all types of restricted holding facilities, the operator of a category 1 restricted holding facility must abide by the following conditions:

     (((1))) (a) All ((cattle)) animals entering a category 1 restricted holding ((facilities)) facility must have official individual identification listed on the certificate of veterinary inspection.

     (((2))) (b) No animals may be removed from the category 1 restricted holding facility until they meet state and federal import regulations.

     (c) Animals may be removed from the restricted holding facility without meeting state and federal import regulations if they are sent to a federally inspected slaughter establishment and have not commingled with any other animals not also similarly restricted. Animals that have commingled with others not also similarly restricted will be quarantined and must be tested negative for disease as determined by the state veterinarian within thirty days before being released from the holding facility.

     (3) Additional requirements for a category 2 restricted holding facility. In addition to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section for all types of restricted holding facilities, the operator of a category 2 restricted holding facility must abide by the following conditions:

     (a) There may be no contact between cattle not also similarly restricted ((and no commingling between separate shipments of cattle)).

     (((3) No cattle may be removed from the restricted holding facility until they meet state and federal import regulations.

     (4))) (b) Cattle may be removed from the restricted holding facility without meeting state and federal import regulations if they are sent immediately to a federally inspected slaughter plant.

     (((5) The restricted holding facility will be maintained in a sanitary condition.

     (6) The department of agriculture will be notified immediately of any outbreak of any infectious or contagious disease.

     (7) The disposition of dead cattle will be in accordance with the laws relating to the disposal of dead livestock and in accordance with chapter 16-25 WAC.

     (8) Accurate records will be kept for six years to account for all cattle entering and leaving the restricted holding facility. Records must be open for review by authorized department of agriculture personnel during normal business hours, and must be provided to the department upon the director's request.)) (c) There must be a minimum of thirty feet between the restricted holding facility and other lots and facilities.

     (d) No common fences and gates may be used.

     (e) Cattle in the restricted holding facility must not share water or feeding facilities accessible to other areas.

     (f) The state veterinarian will conduct at least two and up to four random, unannounced audits during each licensing period. The audits will consist of a physical inspection. The licensee is also required to periodically confirm with the department cattle shipments identified on state import permits as destined to the restricted holding facility by telephone or e-mail. The rate for audits is established in WAC 16-91-040, but the total amount charged per licensed restricted holding facility shall not exceed one thousand five hundred dollars in a calendar year.

     (g) (f) of this subsection shall not limit the number of inspections necessary to investigate potential violations or limit the number of inspections or total amount charged to ensure compliance after a violation is found. Category 2 restricted holding facilities that have been found to be in violation of animal health or import regulations may be charged for audits and inspections in excess of the one thousand five hundred dollar limit in (f) of this subsection. This section shall not limit the department from charging the time and mileage fee for inspecting livestock and related records during an investigation of a proven violation of section 3, chapter 66, Laws of 2010.

     (4) Additional requirements for category 3 restricted holding facilities. In addition to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section for all types of restricted holding facilities, the operator of a category 3 restricted holding facility must abide by the following conditions:

     (a) The operator of a category 3 restricted holding facility must abide by quarantine conditions set forth by the state veterinarian.

     (b) Accurate records will be kept accounting for all animals entering the category 3 restricted holding facility for the length of the quarantine.

     (c) An animal in a category 3 restricted holding facility may be legally removed from the facility only upon the animal's death or if the animal is moved from the location by permit from the state veterinarian's office on a United States Department of Agriculture VS form 1-27 for the movement of restricted or quarantined animals to another category 3 restricted holding facility.

     (d) If an animal dies or is moribund in a category 3 restricted holding facility, the operator of the holding facility will immediately notify the state veterinarian of the animal's condition. The state veterinarian may require inspection and testing of the animal before disposal.

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 08-01-095, § 16-30-038, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08.]

     Washington State Department of Agriculture

     Animal Services Division

     1111 Washington St. S.E.

     P.O. Box 42577

     Olympia, Washington 98504-2577

     Phone: 360-902-1878.

     (2) Applicants for restricted feedlots and restricted holding facilities must provide the following information on the application form:

     (a) Name and address of applicant;

     (b) Location of the restricted feedlot or restricted holding facility; and

     (c) Drawing of the layout of the restricted feedlot or restricted holding facility.

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 08-01-095, § 16-30-039, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08.]

     (2) Any violation of chapter 16.36 RCW or any of the rules adopted under that chapter is sufficient cause for the suspension or revocation of any permit to operate a restricted feedlot or restricted holding facility. In all proceedings for suspension or revocation of a restricted feedlot or restricted holding facility permit, the owner or manager has the right to request a hearing before revocation is made permanent. Any action shall be taken under the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act.

[Statutory Authority: Chapters 16.36 and 34.05 RCW. 08-01-095, § 16-30-040, filed 12/17/07, effective 1/17/08. Statutory Authority: RCW 16.36.040 and 16.36.050. 88-05-003 (Order 1964), § 16-30-040, filed 2/5/88; Order 955, Regulation 4, filed 8/31/64; Order 851, Regulation 4, effective 7/19/61.]

     The following sections of the Washington Administrative Code are repealed:

WAC 16-30-050	Brands.
WAC 16-30-060	Brand time.
WAC 16-30-070	Place of brand.

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office