Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES 1255 23 rd St., NW Suite 450 Washington, DC 20037 Civil Action No. ______

THE HUMANE SOCIETY LEGISLATIVE FUND Complaint for Declaratory and 1255 23 rd St., NW Injunctive Relief Suite 455 Washington, DC 20037

PAULINE STOTSENBERG 40836 Calle Bandido Murrieta, CA 92562

JANA BABUSZCZAK 31015 Becky Ln. Magnolia, TX 77354

WILLIAM COON 7876 W. Canyon Rd. Herriman, UT 84096

KRISTI QUAINTANCE 48337 253 rd St. Garretson, SD 57030

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE , 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250

THE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE , 4700 River Rd. Riverdale, MD 20737

THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER 8601 Adelphi Rd. College Park, MD 20740

1 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 46

SONNY PERDUE , in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250

KEVIN SHEA , in his official capacity as Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Rd., Riverdale, MD 20737

OLIVER POTTS , in his official capacity as Director of the Office of the Federal Register, 8601 Adelphi Rd. College Park, MD 20740

Defendants.

2 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 46

INTRODUCTION

1. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) and the United States

Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) have unlawfully repealed a final rule duly issued, prescribed or promulgated to achieve the statutory mandate of the Protection Act of 1970 and its 1976 amendments (the “HPA” or the “Act,” codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq. )—viz , to end the cruel and inhuman practice of “horse ” whereby devices, equipment and foreign substances are used to inflict pain on a horse’s limbs and feet in order to provoke a high-stepping gait prized among some and exhibitors. Specifically, “Action: Final

Rule Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and Other Amendments,” attached as Exhibit A, (hereinafter “the Final Rule”) would have replaced the wholly inadequate existing regulatory scheme that has failed to end horse soring. 1 The Final Rule was duly issued, prescribed or promulgated because it had been (a) signed by the responsible USDA official; (b) sent to the Office of Federal Register (“OFR”) for publication; (c) published in full decisional text form on USDA’s website with an effective date; (d) publicized in a USDA press release; and (e) placed on public inspection by OFR and scheduled for publication. As a result, the Final Rule was

“valid as against” all persons under the Federal Register Act (“FRA”) and duly issued, prescribed or promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and could not be repealed without public notice first proposing such repeal, explaining the rationale for it and providing the opportunity for public comment. Moreover, such repeal constitutes a clear and abrupt reversal of the legal, policy and factual findings by USDA and APHIS that necessitated the adoption of the

1 Exhibit A is the publicly-available document currently posted on the APHIS website, https:// www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/federal_register/hpa-rule.pdf, bearing the electronic signature of the authorized agent of USDA, Mr. David Howard. Attached as Exhibit B is a version produced by APHIS’s Animal Care program office in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, bearing the manual signature of Mr. Howard.

3 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 46

Final Rule without any explanation whatsoever to support that reversal; as a matter of law, therefore, such repeal was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. Because the Final Rule is necessary to achieve the HPA’s statutory mandate to end “horse soring,” its repeal also violates the HPA.

2. There can be no dispute that the U.S. Congress enacted the HPA to end horse soring.

15 U.S.C. § 1824. The HPA declares an array of conduct used for horse soring to constitute

“unlawful acts” and authorizes USDA to promulgate “rules and regulations” as “necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” Id .; 15 U.S.C. § 1828.

3. Following the 1976 amendments to the HPA, USDA, through APHIS, promulgated regulations governing inspections to detect the use of devices, equipment and chemical substances that cause soring and those that attempt to mask it, and enforcement in the event of such detection

(the “HPA Regulations,” as amended, codified at 9 C.F.R. § 11.1 et seq. ). The HPA Regulations have long been acknowledged as failing to end horse soring due to (a) their fundamental flaw— viz, allowing the to regulate itself through Horse Industry Organizations (“HIOs”) that hire and license private individuals known as Designated Qualified Persons (“DQPs”) to perform inspections and that assess and enforce penalties (and administer appeals of those penalties) of any horse soring identified by DQPs—as well as (b) their failure to prohibit certain devices, equipment and foreign substances that have no legitimate purpose other than to cause horse soring. Indeed, USDA’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”)—after a multi-year investigation—issued a report documenting this fundamental flaw and the overall failure of the

HPA Regulations: The HIO-administered scheme with licensed DQP inspectors embodies a

“clear” and “inherent conflict of interest . . . . because DQPs are not independent of the organizers who employ them.” U.S. DEP ’T. OF AGRIC ., AUDIT REP . 33601-2-KC, ANIMAL AND

4 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 46

PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM

AND THE SLAUGHTER HORSE TRANSPORT PROGRAM 2, 10 (2010), https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33601-02-KC.pdf. “Because these DQPs are primarily hired from show industry participants . . . they are reluctant to issue violations since excluding from the show inconveniences their employers, and makes it less likely they will be hired for other shows. They are also subject to a conflict of interest because, while they are acting as a DQP at one show, they may be an exhibitor at another show, and the exhibitor of the horse they are examining might later act as the DQP. Due to this ineffective inspection system, the Horse

Protection Act is not being sufficiently enforced and the practice of abusing show horses continues.” Id . “We are recommending that APHIS abolish the DQP program, and instead provide independent, accredited veterinarians to perform inspections at sanctioned shows” because the

HPA Regulations simply are “not working to accomplish [its] . . . goals.” Id .

4. In 2016, APHIS published a proposed rule that—consistent with OIG’s findings and USDA’s obligation to issue regulations “necessary to carry out” the HPA’s statutory mandate to end horse soring—would replace the HIO-administered scheme with USDA-licensed inspectors and would prohibit certain devices, equipment and foreign substances with no legitimate purpose other than to cause horse soring. After holding public meetings online and in Tennessee,

Kentucky, California and Maryland and considering the over 130,000 comments submitted on the proposed rule, APHIS duly issued, prescribed or promulgated the Final Rule on January 13, 2017, in accordance with the APA and the FRA.

5. APHIS duly issued, prescribed or promulgated the Final Rule by signing the Final

Rule; by placing the text of the rule on its website in full decisional form with an effective date; by describing the Final Rule in a detailed agency press release, which was widely read by and

5 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 46

distributed among the regulated public; by transmitting the Final Rule to OFR for publication; and by allowing the Final Rule to be placed by OFR on public inspection and scheduled for publication.

6. After it was placed on public inspection on Thursday, January 19, 2017 and scheduled for publication on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, the Final Rule was not published on

January 24.

7. On or around February 2, 2017, USDA posted an announcement stating that the

Final Rule (which USDA characterized as a “final rule”) had been withdrawn from Federal

Register publication “in accordance with a memorandum issued to Federal agencies on January 20

[hereinafter the “Regulatory Review Memo”] to ensure the new policy team has an opportunity to review it” (the “Withdrawal Announcement”).

8. A non-publicly released document indicates that prior to the Withdrawal

Announcement, on January 23, 2017, USDA had requested OFR not to publish the Final Rule. By that point, however, the Final Rule had been duly issued, prescribed or promulgated, and therefore, such request was tantamount to a repeal of the Final Rule.

9. OFR complied with USDA’s January 23, 2017 request not to publish the Final Rule, even though the Final Rule already had been on public inspection and no postponement of publication was necessary for “error correction.” By doing so, OFR exceeded its authority under the FRA. Additionally, OFR failed to follow its own regulations when it scheduled the Final Rule for publication on January 24, 2017, instead of the earlier date of January 23, 2017 that would apply under its regulations, thereby allowing USDA additional time to request that OFR not publish the Final Rule. See 1 C.F.R. § 17.2(c).

10. The Withdrawal Announcement remains on USDA’s website today, but it is neither accurate nor genuine: USDA placed the Final Rule on “inactive” status and subsequently admitted

6 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 46

by its words and actions that it has never engaged in any substantive “review” of it as directed under the Regulatory Review Memo, but instead intends to retain the HPA Regulations that the

Final Rule would have replaced and that have failed to achieve the HPA’s statutory mandate to end horse soring.

11. Plaintiffs now seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as costs and attorney fees, including an order vacating the repeal of the Final Rule, and any other relief that may be just or proper.

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff The Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”) is the nation’s largest animal protection group. On behalf of its members, HSUS engages in legislative advocacy, public education, litigation, investigations and rescues to combat animal abuse and exploitation as well as to promote the protection and welfare of all animals, including but not limited to horses. HSUS is a non-profit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., and the organization and its affiliates operate regional offices and direct animal care facilities throughout the United States and international offices around the world.

13. HSUS supports breed and industry organizations that promote the natural gait and humane treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. HSUS offers rewards to bring horse abusers to justice, works with law enforcement agencies on education about animal cruelty, including horse soring, and assists in law enforcement investigations as well as undertakes its own undercover investigations to identify horse soring and other . For example, in 2012, an HSUS undercover investigation led to the arrest, indictment on 52 counts

(including felonies), and ultimate guilty plea of a notorious trainer who was known to rely on soring.

7 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 46

14. Defendants’ repeal of the Final Rule has allowed soring to persist unabated as a result of a conflict-ridden inspection program and continued utilization of certain devices, equipment and foreign substances that have no purpose other than to cause horse soring. As a result, HSUS has been forced to redirect its limited time and resources away from existing horse protection work to identify, investigate, publicize and counteract continuing soring activities that would have been prevented, or at least dramatically reduced, under the Final Rule, and that would no longer be necessary if the Final Rule were reinstated.

15. HSUS also brings this action on behalf of its members. The interests HSUS seeks to protect are germane to its organizational purpose, and neither the claim nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members—even though, as discussed below, at least some

HSUS members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right ( i.e., its members have suffered or will suffer concrete and imminent injury).

16. HSUS’s membership includes individuals who are concerned about the welfare of horses in the walking horse industry. Defendants’ repeal of the Final Rule harms HSUS’s members by, inter alia , preventing them from purchasing tickets to and attending walking horse shows and exhibitions reasonably free from soring; putting exhibitors of “sound” or “not sored” walking horses at a competitive disadvantage against sore horses that are still allowed to compete; and inflicting the aesthetic and emotional injury of either attending shows with the knowledge that the walking horses being shown continue to suffer from soring practices widely recognized as cruel, or refraining from attending those shows in order to avoid that aesthetic injury. Defendants allow soring to persist through regulations that rely upon an admittedly ineffective self-policing regime, and that permit soring techniques, devices and substances that are prohibited under the Final Rule

8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 9 of 46

to remain in widespread use. These injuries would be remedied if this Court were to grant the relief requested.

17. Plaintiff The Humane Society Legislative Fund (“HSLF”) joins HSUS in this action on behalf of itself and its members. HSLF is an animal protection organization incorporated under

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and operates as a separate affiliate of HSUS.

HSLF was formed in 2004 and is based in Washington, D.C. HSLF works to ensure that animals have a voice before federal and state lawmakers by advocating for measures to eliminate animal cruelty and suffering, and educating the public on animal protection issues. HSLF has led numerous campaigns related to the HPA, including advocating for increased federal funding to enforce the Act, educating members of Congress on the limitations of the HIO-administered system, and educating the public on the signs and effects of soring. As a result of Defendants’ repeal of the Final Rule, HSLF too has had to divert limited resources away from other anti-cruelty advocacy efforts to continue educating lawmakers and the public on the effects of soring, and its members, many of whom it shares with HSUS, have similarly felt the effects of the repeal both as spectators of and exhibitors in walking horse shows and exhibitions.

18. Plaintiff Pauline Stotsenberg, a resident of Riverside County, California, is an

HSUS member and a horse owner since 1987. During that time she has owned over 50 horses.

Although Mrs. Stotsenberg previously showed, and also owned and managed a facility and business that trained, boarded and bred walking horses, she ceased all such business activities by

2015 after she realized it was impossible for unsored, or “sound,” horses to compete in the industry without the prohibitions and regulatory oversight that would have been provided under the Final

Rule. Mrs. Stotsenberg would resume her previous activities with walking horses if the Final Rule were implemented. Additionally, Mrs. Stotsenberg’s emotional suffering from her knowledge that

9 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 10 of 46

horses continue to be sored would be alleviated at least in part if the Final Rule were implemented, and she would then be free to attend walking horse shows and participate in the walking horse industry without the pain of knowing horses were being sored.

19. Plaintiff Jana Babuszczak, a resident of Montgomery County, Texas, is an HSUS member and has owned several walking horses since 1987. Although Ms. Babuszczak showed, trained, boarded and bred walking horses, she ceased training, boarding and breeding by 2008 after she realized it was impossible for sound horses to compete in the industry without the regulatory enforcement that would have been provided under the Final Rule. In addition to being at a competitive disadvantage because she will not sore the horses she shows, Ms. Babuszczak lost at least one training client because she refused to sore horses. As a veterinary technician, Ms.

Babuszczak is significantly impacted by her knowledge of how much pain and damage the soring techniques inflict upon horses, and so refuses to participate in that cruelty. Ms. Babuszczak would resume her previous activities with walking horses if the Final Rule were implemented.

Additionally, Ms. Babuszczak’s emotional suffering from her knowledge that horses continue to be sored would be alleviated at least in part if the Final Rule were implemented, and she would then be free to attend walking horse shows and participate in the walking horse industry without the pain of knowing horses were being sored.

20. Plaintiff William Coon, a resident of Salt Lake County, Utah, is an HSUS member and was first introduced to walking horses in 1964. He owned several and began showing horses in 1984. Mr. Coon owned a horse which, without Mr. Coon’s knowledge, was sored by a trainer seeking a competitive advantage. Mr. Coon later learned his horse won a show only after the trainer had sored the horse. Mr. Coon became aware of the soring when he stopped by the stable unannounced and found his horse in such agony that it could not stand. Mr. Coon stopped showing

10 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 11 of 46

horses in 1994 after he saw the cruel treatment to which walking horses were subjected absent the regulatory prohibitions and oversight that would have been provided under the Final Rule. He became a horse exhibition judge in 2001 because he wanted to protect other horses from being sored as his was and because most judges at shows he saw (hired under the current regulations) were rewarding trainers who sored, thereby perpetuating those practices. Additionally, Mr. Coon’s emotional suffering from his knowledge that horses continue to be sored would be alleviated at least in part if the Final Rule were implemented, and he would then be free to attend walking horse shows and participate in the walking horse industry without the pain of knowing horses were being sored.

21. Plaintiff Kristi Quaintance, a resident of Minnehaha County, South Dakota, is an

HSUS and HSLF member. Since 1997, she has owned over 40 horses as well as showed, bred, and sold walking horses. Mrs. Quaintance stopped showing horses in 2005 after she realized it was impossible for sound horses to compete without the regulatory prohibitions and oversight that would have been provided under the Final Rule. She also stopped breeding and selling walking horses, and gelded a stallion she had planned to breed, to prevent any more of her young horses

(which she refers to as her “babies”) from being tortured in the absence of the regulatory prohibitions and oversight that would have existed had the Final Rule not been unlawfully repealed. Additionally, Mrs. Quaintance’s emotional suffering from her knowledge that horses continue to be sored would be alleviated at least in part if the Final Rule were implemented, and she would then be free to attend walking horse shows and participate in the walking horse industry without the pain of knowing horses were being sored.

11 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 12 of 46

22. Defendant USDA is a federal governmental agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(f)(1) and is entrusted with enforcement of the HPA and the promulgation of rules and regulations thereto.

23. Defendant APHIS is a federal governmental agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(f)(1) and is tasked by USDA with HPA enforcement. USDA is the parent agency of APHIS.

24. Defendant OFR is a federal governmental agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

§ 552(f)(1) and is entrusted with the publication of the Federal Register.

25. Defendant Sonny Perdue is the Secretary of USDA and has ultimate responsibility for decisions made by USDA and APHIS, as an office within his Department. Plaintiffs sue

Secretary Perdue in his official capacity.

26. Defendant Kevin Shea is the administrator of APHIS and is charged with the supervision and management of that agency’s decisions and actions. Plaintiffs sue Administrator

Shea in his official capacity.

27. Defendant Oliver Potts, Director of OFR, is the agency’s highest-ranking official and is charged with the supervision and management of all decisions and actions of that agency.

Plaintiffs sue Director Potts in his official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

28. This action arises under APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 553, 701-706, the FRA, 44 U.S.C.

§ 1503, and the HPA. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to these provisions and

28 U.S.C. § 1331.

29. This Court has the authority to issue the requested declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706.

30. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). This action is brought against an officer and agency of the United States, and Defendants maintain offices in the District

12 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 13 of 46

of Columbia. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) because plaintiff HSUS resides and has its principal place of business in this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORKS

The Horse Protection Act

31. The HPA provides, irrespective of whether or not USDA or APHIS issue “rules and regulations,” that “[t]he following conduct is prohibited”:

(1) The shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse which is sore with reason to believe that such horse while it is sore may be shown, exhibited, entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale, in any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction; except that this paragraph does not apply to the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse by a common or contract carrier or an employee thereof in the usual course of the carrier’s business or employee’s employment unless the carrier or employee has reason to believe that such horse is sore.

(2) The (A) showing or exhibiting, in any horse show or horse exhibition, of any horse which is sore, (B) entering for the purpose of showing or exhibiting in any horse show or horse exhibition, any horse which is sore, (C) selling, auctioning, or offering for sale, in any horse sale or auction, any horse which is sore, and (D) allowing any activity described in clause (A), (B), or (C) respecting a horse which is sore by the owner of such horse.

(3) The failure by the management of any horse show or horse exhibition, which does not appoint and retain a person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to disqualify from being shown or exhibited any horse which is sore.

(4) The failure by the management of any horse sale or auction, which does not appoint and retain a qualified person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse which is sore.

(5) The failure by the management of any horse show or horse exhibition, which has appointed and retained a person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to disqualify from being shown or exhibited any horse (A) which is sore, and (B) after having been notified by such person or the Secretary that the horse is sore or after otherwise having knowledge that the horse is sore.

(6) The failure by the management of any horse sale or auction which has appointed and retained a person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse (A) which is sore, and (B) after

13 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 14 of 46

having been notified by such person or the Secretary or after otherwise having knowledge that the horse is sore.

(7) The showing or exhibiting at a horse show or horse exhibition; the selling or auctioning at a horse sale or auction; the allowing to be shown, exhibited, or sold at a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction; the entering for the purpose of showing or exhibiting in any horse show or horse exhibition; or offering for sale at a horse sale or auction, any horse which is wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance which the Secretary by regulation under section 1828 of this title prohibits to prevent the soring of horses.

(8) The failing to establish, maintain, or submit records, notices, reports, or other information required under section 1823 of this title.

(9) The failure or refusal to permit access to or copying of records, or the failure or refusal to permit entry or inspection, as required by section 1823 of this title.

(10) The removal of any marking required by the Secretary to identify a horse as being detained.

(11) The failure or refusal to provide the Secretary with adequate space or facilities, as the Secretary may by regulation under section 1828 of this title prescribe, in which to conduct inspections or any other activity authorized to be performed by the Secretary under this chapter.

15 U.S.C. § 1824 (“Unlawful Acts”).

32. USDA and APHIS are charged with issuing “rules and regulations” “necessary” to carry out the HPA’s prohibition on “Unlawful Acts:” “The Secretary is authorized to issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 15 U.S.C.

§ 1828 (“Rules and Regulations”).

33. The HPA framework indicates that the APA governs the Secretary’s promulgation of rules and regulations pursuant to Section 1828.

The Administrative Procedure Act

34. The APA defines “agency action” to include inter alia “the whole or part of an agency rule,” 5 U.S.C. § 551(13), and defines “rule,” in turn, as the “whole or a part of an agency

14 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 15 of 46

statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement . . . law or policy . . . .” Id . § 551(4).

35. “Rule making” is the “process [of] formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” Id.

§ 551(5). APA Section 553 mandates procedural requirements for rulemaking and typically requires that a “[g]eneral notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal

Register,” but establishes an exception from Federal Register publication when “persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with the law.” Id. § 553(b). “After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments . . . .” Id. § 553(c).

36. “After consideration” of the written data, views or arguments presented by interested persons, “the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.” Id. “[P]ublication or service of” this final rule must occur “not less than 30 days before its effective date.” Id. § 553(d).

37. The APA provides for judicial review of any “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court”—including the promulgation and repeal of a final rule. “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” See id. §§ 702, 704.

38. The APA requires a reviewing court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A). An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency’s analysis is internally inconsistent or inadequately explained, or if it diverges from prior

15 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 16 of 46

policies and standards without providing a reasoned explanation for why the agency changed course.

The Federal Register Act

39. The Federal Register Act (“FRA”) directs that “[t]here shall be published in the

Federal Register . . . documents or classes of documents that may be required so to be published by Act of Congress.” 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a)(3).

40. OFR is responsible for the prompt and uniform printing and distribution of documents required to be published in the Federal Register. See 44 U.S.C. § 1502. The FRA requires that documents to be published in the Federal Register be transmitted to OFR for processing prior to publication. See id. § 1503. Upon receipt, OFR must make each document

“immediately available for public inspection,” and must transmit each document “immediately to the Government Publishing Office for printing” in the Federal Register. Id .

41. OFR’s regulations to implement the FRA allow for withdrawal of documents prior to publication only where necessary to correct extensive errors in the document. 1 C.F.R. §

18.13(a) (“Withdrawal or correction of filed documents”) provides: “A document that has been filed for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register but not yet published, may be withdrawn from publication or corrected by the submitting agency. Withdrawals or minor corrections may be made with a timely letter, signed by a duly authorized representative of the agency . Extensive corrections may require agency withdrawal of the document from publication.”

42. OFR’s Document Drafting Handbook contains only one reference to § 18.13, which appears in Chapter 5: “How Do I Correct A Document?” That chapter discusses withdrawing a document from publication where necessary to make more extensive corrections. See NAT ’L

ARCHIVES AND RECS . ADMIN ., OFFICE OF THE FED . REG ., DOCUMENT DRAFTING HANDBOOK § 5-2

(2019), https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf.

16 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 17 of 46

43. OFR regulations to implement the FRA require public inspection and publication based on a prescribed schedule. 1 C.F.R. § 17.2 (“Procedure and timing regular schedule”) states:

“(b) . . . each document received by 2:00 p.m. which meets the requirements of this chapter shall be assigned to the regular schedule. . . . (c) The regular schedule for filing for public inspection and publication is as follows:

Received Filed for Public Published before 2 PM Inspection Monday Wednesday Thursday Tuesday Thursday Friday Wednesday Friday Monday Thursday Monday Tuesday Friday Tuesday Wednesday

“Where a legal Federal holiday intervenes, one additional work day is added.”

44. Under the FRA, “[a] document required . . . to be published in the Federal Register is not valid as against a person who has not had actual knowledge of it until . . . the document ha[s] been filed with the Office of the Federal Register and a copy made available for public inspection

. . . .” 44 U.S.C. § 1507. Unless otherwise provided by statute, “filing of a document . . . is sufficient to give notice of the contents of the document to a person subject to or affected by it.”

Id . Moreover, “[t]he publication in the Federal Register of a document creates a rebuttable presumption – (1) that it was duly issued, prescribed, or promulgated.” Id.

The Freedom of Information Act

45. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) provides that “[e]ach agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public . . . (D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law. . . .” 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(1)(D).

17 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 18 of 46

46. FOIA sets forth the following exception: “Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published.” Id . § 552(a).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Walking Horse Industry And The Cruel And Inhumane Practice Of Horse Soring

47. The Tennessee Walking Horse was originally bred to provide a more comfortable ride to Southern plantation owners who spent hours on horseback. As these farmers gradually turned to motor vehicles, breed owners sought to preserve the walking horse by forming a national registry association and by organizing horse shows. Racking horses perform a similar but different four-beat gait, and were later established as a separate but related offshoot breed from the

Tennessee Walking Horse with their own registry.

48. In the earliest shows, walking horses were honored to the extent they exemplified the steady, relaxed gait said to be natural to the breed. But by the late 1940s, some trainers began experimenting with new techniques emphasizing increased motion and speed, with the additional objective of lifting the horse’s head and front limbs further from the ground. The goal was a unique running-walk with a dramatic, high-prancing action of the front limbs.

49. In the 1950s, trainers learned that this gait could be greatly exaggerated by “soring” the front feet of the horse. If the front feet were sore, the horse would lift them quickly from the ground and shift its weight to the hind legs. While horses naturally place as much as 65 percent of their body weight on the front limbs, the so-called “Big Lick” gait could be achieved only by reversing these proportions. Soring is the use of any method, substance, or device that inflicts pain on a horse in order to induce a desired gait. Several methods are commonly used to sore horses, including chemical irritants, applied to the horse’s pasterns, painful objects placed under the

18 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 19 of 46

hooves and rolling or sliding “action” devices which cause or exacerbate pastern soreness with movement. Methods may be concealed from judges and inspectors through the use of additional chemicals, hoof pads and bands. To evade detection, trainers often subject sored horses to

“stewarding,” in which trainers kick, shock or beat the horse, or affix metal clips to its mouth and gums, among other methods, to condition the animal not to react to pain during an inspection. Big

Lick walking horse and racking horse competitions are mostly found in America's Southeast, including Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina and South

Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Florida, Texas, Missouri, Virginia and Louisiana. The largest of these shows, the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in Shelbyville, Tennessee, has been held annually since 1939.

50. A June 1956 article in Sports Illustrated magazine entitled “Woe for Walkers” was among the first to highlight the “torture” and “disgraceful cruelty” of horse soring, which in some cases was so painful that horses were “too sore to get up.” Alice Higgins, Woe for Walkers , SPORTS

ILLUSTRATED , Jul. 22, 1956, https://www.si.com/vault/1956/07/23/582329/woe-for-walkers. In the years after this article, animal welfare groups and other news articles raised the alarm about horse soring. Despite attempts by some to curb soring, however, the practice continued unabated.

In 1965, U.S. Senator Joseph Tydings began advocating for the passage of a federal law to end horse soring. USDA initially opposed the legislation, and the bill died in committee. But in 1967, public support intensified, and USDA dropped its opposition.

The Horse Protection Act Imposes A Statutory Mandate To End Horse Soring

51. Congress passed the Horse Protection Act of 1970, followed by the Horse

Protection Act Amendments of 1976 (together, the “HPA,” codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq.), to end horse soring. The HPA prohibits exhibiting or selling sore horses, or transporting sore horses with reason to believe that the horse may be sold, shown or exhibited. 15 U.S.C. § 1824(1)-

19 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 20 of 46

(2). The HPA also requires the management of horse shows and exhibitions to disqualify any horse that is sore. Id. § 1823(a). Criminal penalties apply to knowing violations of the HPA. Id.

§ 1825(a).

52. The HPA defines the term “sore” to include any horse which suffers physical pain or distress when walking as result of (a) the application of an irritating or blistering agent, (b) the infliction of a burn, cut or laceration, (c) the injection of a tack, nail, screw or chemical agent, or

(d) any other substance or device used on the limb of the horse. Id. § 1821(3).

53. In adopting the HPA, Congress declared that the practice of soring horses for the purposes of affecting their natural gait is “cruel and inhumane.” Id. § 1822(1). Congress further found that horses which are sored “compete unfairly” with horses which are not sored. 15 U.S.C.

§ 1822(2). Moreover, according to the Senate Report from the Senate Commerce Committee regarding the legislation, “persons who refuse to sore their horses have been faced with a difficult dilemma: either they must forgo most opportunities to compete successfully in horse shows, or they must devote their attentions to a different breed of horse.” S. Rep. No. 91-1591, at 2 (1970).

54. The Horse Protection Act of 1970, however, failed to prevent the showing of sore horses or to eliminate the incentives that lead owners and trainers to sore their horses. S. Rep. No.

93-1282, at 2 (1974). In fact, a Senate committee found “overwhelming evidence that soring continued to be widely practiced after the passage of the Horse Protection Act.” Id.

55. Alarmed by the continued and pervasive practice of horse soring, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act Amendments of 1976. The Amendments directed USDA to “prescribe by regulation” that “management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction” appoint qualified inspectors to assess whether horses are sore. See 15 U.S.C. § 1823(c). As a

House committee explained, USDA would be authorized to “prescribe [the inspectors’]

20 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 21 of 46

qualifications and duties,” adopt any “accreditation requirements,” and “prescribe the conditions to assure [the inspectors’] independence of judgment.” H. Rep. 94-1174, at 8 (1976).

56. The amended law required horse show and exhibition management to disqualify any horse identified as sore by an inspector. 15 U.S.C. § 1823(a). If the horse show and exhibition management did not appoint an inspector to detect soring, management nevertheless would be required to disqualify sore horses. Id. § 1824(3). Congress also increased funding for carrying out the HPA five-fold to $500,000. Id. § 1831.

The HPA Regulatory History And The HPA Regulations That The Final Rule Would Have Replaced Until Its Unlawful Repeal

57. USDA delegated its authority under the HPA to APHIS, and in 1972, APHIS promulgated the first regulations pursuant to the Horse Protection Act of 1970. Horse Protection

Regulation, 37 Fed. Reg. 2,426 (Feb. 1, 1972). The first HPA regulations prohibited certain

“action devices” (defined as boots, collars, chain, beads, bangles, rollers, or other devices which operate by rotating around or moving up and down the leg of the horse, causing friction or striking the hoof, coronet band, or fetlock joint). The regulations also required that show management either disqualify sored horses themselves or appoint a USDA-accredited veterinarian to inspect horses and report violations to show management, which in turn must disqualify sored horses and report violations to APHIS. Id. The new regulations were immediately met with open hostility and even aggression at local shows. In 1972, for example, the USDA had to send three U.S.

Marshals to protect its inspectors after 35 of the 107 entrants were disqualified at the National

Celebration. The disqualifications prompted angry trainers to storm into the show ring, forcing the cancellation of the day’s remaining events.

58. APHIS revised its regulations in 1975 to address complaints from the horse industry that the then-existing regulations were unnecessarily restrictive. 40 Fed. Reg. 36,553 (Aug. 21,

21 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 22 of 46

1975). Only one year later, however, Congress amended the HPA to strengthen its statutory mandate to end horse soring, and APHIS was required to promulgate new regulations. In particular, following passage of the Horse Protection Act Amendments of 1976, APHIS revised the horse soring regulations. See Definition of Terms and Certification and Licensing of

Designated Qualified Persons, 44 Fed. Reg. 1558 (Jan. 5, 1979); Prohibition Concerning

Exhibitors of Horses, Transportation, Inspection and Detention of Certain Horses,

Responsibilities, Liabilities, 44 Fed. Reg. 25,172 (Apr. 27, 1979). These regulations, last amended in the 1990s (hereinafter the “HPA Regulations”), would have been replaced by the Final Rule until its unlawful repeal.

59. The HPA Regulations established an inspection and enforcement scheme administered by HIOs, which the Regulations define essentially as individuals with commercial involvement in the industry, viz , HIO “means an organized group of people, having a formal structure, who are engaged in the promotion of horses through the showing, exhibiting, sale, auction, registry, or any activity which contributed to the advancement of the horse.” 9 C.F.R. §

11.1.

60. HIOs are “certified” by APHIS to administer a DQPs training and licensing program. Id . § 11.7. Any licensed DQP can then be hired by management of a horse show “to detect or diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses and any records pertaining to such horses for the purposes of enforcing the Act.” Id. at § 11.1 ; see also id. at § 11.7(a).

61. The HPA Regulations establish general inspection requirements for DQPs. Id . §

11.21. These requirements aim through such inspection for the DQP to detect “violations” of the

HPA Regulations based on two “prohibitions” set forth in the Regulations: (a) “General prohibitions” of any device, equipment or substance “if such use causes or can reasonably be

22 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 23 of 46

expected to cause such horse to be sore,” id . § 11.2(a), and (b) “Specific prohibitions” of particular devices and equipment enumerated in the Regulations, id . § 11.2(b), including “action devices” that weigh more than 6 ounces. Id . at § 11.2(b)(7). (An “action device” is “any boot, collar, chain, roller, or other device which encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg so as to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band or fetlock joint.” Id. § 11.1.) In addition,

“substances are prohibited on the extremities above the hoof . . . while [the horse is] being shown, exhibited or offered for sale” except for “lubricants” furnished or controlled by management. Id .

§ 11.2(c).

62. As a matter of practice, only the specific prohibitions are enforced. See 81 Fed

Reg. 49112, 49117-49118 (July 26, 2016); Final Rule at 30-33. In its 1979 rulemaking document explaining the specific prohibitions on action devices that weigh more than six ounces, APHIS recognized that prohibiting all devices except for protective boots would make enforcement of the

HPA easier, but concluded that “such drastic action is unwarranted at this time.” Prohibition

Concerning Exhibitors of Horses, Transportation, Inspection and Detention of Certain Horses,

Responsibilities, Liabilities, 44 Fed. Reg. at 25,173. “However, if the horse industry makes no effort to establish a workable self-regulatory program for the elimination of sore horses, or if such a program is established but does not succeed in eliminating the sore horse problem within a reasonable length of time, the Department will give serious consideration to the prohibition of all action devices and pads.” Id.

63. Horse show management may appoint and retain DQPs from any HIO with a certified DQP program. If a DQP finds a “violation,” the DQP “shall immediately report [it] to the management of any horse show, horse exhibition or horse sale or auction”. If such report is

23 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 24 of 46

received by management before that horse has been shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, then management “shall immediately disqualify or disallow” that horse. 9 C.F.R. § 11.20(b)(1).

Whether or not such disqualification or disallowance has occurred, “[t]he HIO that licensed the

DQP” also must “assess and enforce penalties for violations” and allow for appeals based on that

HIO’s “rulebook.” Id. §§ 11.21(d), 11.25(a). While HIOs must annually submit their association rulebooks to USDA as part of certification, HIOs have broad discretion to set internal penalty schemes and appeal procedures.

USDA Recognizes That The HPA Regulations Have Failed To Achieve The HPA’s Statutory Mandate To End Horse Soring

64. On September 30, 2010, OIG published the results of a two-year investigation of horse soring in horse shows that focused on the inadequacies of the HIO-administered scheme for enforcing the HPA through licensed DQP inspectors. See U.S. DEP ’T. OF AGRIC ., supra section 3.

65. According to the Audit Report, “OIG and APHIS have together reached the conclusion that the system of inspections based on DQPs is not working to accomplish the goals of the law. . . .” Id. at 10. The Audit Report concluded that the inadequacy of the HIO- administered scheme with licensed DQP inspectors stems from “inherent” and “direct” conflict of interest. Id. at 10-11. First, because DQPs are “primarily hired from show industry participants .

. . they are reluctant to issue violations[,] since excluding horses from the show inconveniences their employers, and makes it less likely they will be hired for other shows.” Id. Second, “while they are acting as a DQP at one show, they may be an exhibitor at another show, and the exhibitor of the horse they are examining might later act as the DQP.” Id. Under the system, “the horse show management gets the best of both worlds”—limited liability with regard to the HPA and an ineffective inspection and enforcement scheme that rarely detects soring or disqualifies sored horses from shows. Id.

24 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 25 of 46

66. As part of its investigation, between August 2008 and August 2009, OIG sent auditors to horse shows in Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida and Kentucky. Id. at 35.

Auditors interviewed APHIS personnel, reviewed horse show reports, monitored actual inspections and generally observed horse shows. Id. Examples of deficient inspections observed during these visits included: (a) a DQP who admitted he gave each exhibitor three “freebies” before issuing a ticket; (b) a DQP who, in violation of applicable regulations, “kept his back turned” to horses while they walked, and then failed to inspect horses that placed first; and (c) a

DQP who changed the name on a ticket after placing a phone call to the stable. Id. at 12-13.

APHIS veterinarians also explained to Auditors during interviews that exhibitors frequently send their children, friends and employees to accept tickets so that the actual exhibitors could avoid penalties entirely. Id.

67. In addition, auditors reviewed data from over 1,000 horse shows that occurred between 2005 and 2008, and found that “DQPs are much more likely to find evidence of soring when APHIS employees are present than when they are not.” Id. at 11. Specifically, 49 percent of all tickets issued by DQPs were issued at the six percent of shows where APHIS employees were present. Id.

68. OIG concluded: “[g]iven the problems we observed with DQPs and the conflicts of interest, we are recommending that APHIS abolish the DQP program, and instead provide independent, accredited veterinarians to perform inspections at sanctioned shows.” Id. at 3. If

APHIS “replac[ed] the DQP Program with a system of independent veterinarians,” then

“[e]xhibitors would have greater confidence that other exhibitors were competing fairly,” and

“horse show organizers would be more confident that they were in full compliance with the law.”

Id. at 17.

25 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 26 of 46

69. APHIS agreed with the “intent” of the Audit Report’s recommendations, and proposed to “abolish the current DQP licensing system,” turning over licensing to APHIS officials.

APHIS also agreed to establish “strict qualification and criteria to prohibit conflicts of interest.”

Id. at 18. In 2012, APHIS concluded: “[O]ver 30 years of industry self-regulation through the

DQP program has failed to eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of soring.” Horse Protection

Act; Requiring Horse Industry Organizations to Assess and Enforce Minimum Penalties for

Violations, 77 Fed. Reg. 33,607, 33,609 (June 7, 2012).

Independent Organizations Concluded That The Failure Of The HPA Regulations To Prohibit Certain Devices And Equipment Have Allowed Horse Soring To Continue In Violation Of The HPA’s Statutory Mandate To End It

70. Two years after OIG published the Audit Report, the American Veterinary Medical

Association (“AVMA”) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (“AAEP”) urged

APHIS to ban all action devices and pads, including those weighing less than six ounces. Am.

Veterinary Med’ Ass’n and Am. Ass’n of Equine Practitioners, AVMA and AAEP Position on the

Use of Action Devices and Performance Packages for Tennessee Walking Horses (June 14, 2012), https://aaep.org/avmaaaep-position-use-action-devices-and-performance-packages-tennessee- walking-horses. According to the AVMA and AAEP, because horse soring has continued since the passage of the HPA and the industry has failed to make substantial progress in eliminating the practice, a ban is “necessary.” Id.

71. The AVMA and AAEP explained that, when action devices are used “in conjunction with chemical irritants on the pastern of the horse’s foot, the motion of the action device creates a painful response, resulting a more exaggerated gait.” Id. Pads also may be used to “add weight to the horse’s foot, causing it to strike with more force and at an abnormal angle to the ground” and to “facilitate the concealment of items that apply pressure to the sole of the horse’s

26 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 27 of 46

hoof.” Id. According to the AVMA and AAEP, “[p]ressure from these hidden items produces pain in the hoof so that the horse lifts its feet faster and higher in an exaggerated gait.” Id.

USDA Amends HPA Regulations To Strengthen HIO-Administered Scheme, But Its Action Is Vacated By Court of Appeals

72. In response to reports of continued soring and abuse, from 2010 to 2012, HSUS submitted a series of petitions for rulemaking to strengthen the HIO-administered scheme and

“ensure uniform and effective enforcement of the [HPA].” Humane Soc’y of the U.S. et al.,

Petition for Rulemaking, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. APHIS-2011-0006, APHIS Doc. No. APHIS-

2011-0006-0002 at 3 (Aug. 4, 2010), https://www.regulations .gov/document?D=APHIS-2011-

0006-0002.

73. On August 4, 2010, HSUS submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that

APHIS amend the HPA Regulations to, among other things, require that HIOs adopt a minimum penalty structure for HPA violations, permanently disqualify scarred horses and certain repeat individual offenders of the HPA from participating in all horse showing activities and decertify

HIOs that fail or otherwise refuse to correct instances of noncompliance under the Act. Id. The minimum penalty regime, in particular, was designed to remedy certain “inconsistent and optional penalty structures permitted by USDA” that the evidence indicated “facilitate nonenforcement and repeated soring,” in part, by allowing show management to selectively contract with HIOs that tended to impose softer penalties. Id. at 23.

74. On March 21, 2012, HSUS amended its petition to also request that APHIS consider the use of masking agents (i.e., certain foreign substances applied to a horse’s body to mask evidence of soring) a felony offense under Section 1825(a)(2)(C) of the Act. See Letter from

Jonathan R. Lovvom, Senior Vice President, Humane Soc’y of the U.S., to Tom Vilsack, Sec’y,

U.S. Dep’t of Agric. at 1 (March 21, 2012). HSUS noted that that new evidence suggested that

27 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 28 of 46

the abuse of Tennessee Walking Horses remained “rampant” and that “additional enforcement of the HPA is desperately needed.” Id. at 2.

75. After HSUS submitted the petitions, APHIS amended the HPA Regulations in 2012 to require HIOs to assess and enforce certain minimum penalties. Horse Protection Act; Requiring

Horse Industry Organizations To Assess and Enforce Minimum Penalties for Violations, 77 Fed.

Reg. 33,607 (June 7, 2012). APHIS denied HSUS’s other requests under the petitions.

76. However, in 2015, the Fifth Circuit concluded that APHIS’s final rule extended beyond the statutory authority under the HPA, and further that only USDA itself—not the HIOs— has enforcement authority under the HPA. Contender Farms, L.L.P. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. , 779

F.3d 258, 273-74 (5th Cir. 2015).

77. On February 18, 2015, HSUS submitted a new petition for rulemaking under the

HPA. Consistent with the findings of the Fifth Circuit, the recommendations of the Audit Report and the findings of the AVMA and AAEP, the new petition requested that APHIS amend the HPA

Regulations to eliminate the HIO-administered system and transfer all enforcement authority to a system administered by APHIS. Humane Soc’y of the U.S., Supplemental Petition for Rulemaking to Amend Regulations Under the Horse Protection Act, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. at 4 (Feb. 18, 2015).

The petition also requested that the HPA Regulations ban the use of action devices, pads, wedges and hoof bands. Id. HSUS was particularly concerned that, with the minimum penalty system invalidated and USDA Veterinary Medical Officers (“VMOs”) attending only a fraction of shows and exhibitions, USDA’s enforcement capabilities would be materially diminished under the existing HIO-administered scheme.

28 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 29 of 46

USDA Engages In Rulemaking To Eliminate HIO-Administered Scheme And To Prohibit Certain Devices And Equipment

78. On July 26, 2016, APHIS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register entitled

“Horse Protection: Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and Other Amendments” (the

“Proposed Rule”). 81 Fed. Reg. 49,112. The Proposed Rule would eliminate the HIO- administered scheme with licensed DQP inspectors—replacing it with an APHIS-run program that would train, license, and monitor third-party inspectors—and would otherwise eliminate all regulatory responsibilities of HIOs. Id. APHIS also proposed to ban all action devices, pads, wedges and hoof bands. 81 Fed. Reg. at 49,117. Because all action devices would be banned, there would be no need for “lubricants” or other substances associated with horse soring; thus, the

Proposed Rule would eliminate all substances.

79. APHIS explained its rationale as follows:

• “The [OIG Report’s] findings and our own experience with the DQP program

indicate that the current program facilitates conflicts of interest between HIOs

and DQPs that contribute to the persistence of soring in the gaited horse

industry.” Id. at 49,119.

• The Agency “agrees with the OIG’s conclusion that the current program of

HIOs training and licensing DQPs is not adequately detecting soring or

promoting enforcement of the Act,” id. at 49,113, and that the proposed changes

are “necessary,” id. at 49,115.

• “We have observed . . . from our direct experience in enforcing the Act and

regulations over many years that [action devices], when used in combination

with prohibited foreign substances . . . can create lesions and inflammation that

constitute soring. . . . [W]e have diagnosed soring in horses that have worn

29 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 30 of 46

chains under 6 ounces and other devices allowed in the current regulations. . .

.” Id. at 49,120.

• “Our experience at horse shows and exhibitions also indicates that soring has

continued to occur through the use of hoof pads . . . . Pads used in performance

packages can conceal objects that produce pain or be designed to cause the

horse’s hoof to strike the ground at an abnormal angle . . . resulting in an

exaggerated gait.” Id. at 49,120.

80. Following publication of the Proposed Rule, APHIS accepted comments and hosted public meetings online and in person in Tennessee, Kentucky, California and Maryland. In total,

APHIS received and reviewed over 130,000 comments on the Proposed Rule.

81. On October 24, 2016, 181 members of Congress, including two doctors of veterinary medicine, submitted a letter to USDA, urging it to “act expeditiously to finalize [the rule] before the end of this Administration,” and to ensure that the final rule “[e]liminate[s] the industry self-policing system . . . and replace[s] it with USDA-licensed and trained third-party, independent inspectors who will be . . . accountable to [APHIS].” See Members of Cong., 114th

Cong., Letter on Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and Other

Amendments [Docket No. APIDS-2011-0009] 1 (Oct. 24, 2016), https://yoho.house.gov/sites/ yoho.house.gov/files/USDA%20HPA%20Member%20Letter_Signed_October%2024%2C%202

016.pdf. The letter further encouraged USDA to “end” the use of action devices, pads, wedges, hoof bands and other devices not used specifically for therapeutic purposes. Id. at 2.

USDA Duly Promulgates Final Rule

82. On January 13, 2017, at 4:39 PM EST, USDA issued a press release to its website under the title, “USDA Announces Changes Aimed at Ending the Inhumane Practice of Horse

Soring” (the “Final Rule Press Release,” attached as Exhibit C). The Final Rule Press Release

30 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 31 of 46

stated: “The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) today announced a final rule that includes changes that will help to protect horses

. . . .” Exhibit C at 1.

83. The Final Rule Press Release included a hyperlink to a 149-page PDF document labeled “Action: Final rule” and entitled, “Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified

Persons and Other Amendments” (the “Final Rule,” attached as Exhibit A). The Final Rule was dated January 11, 2017 and signed by David Howard in his official capacity as USDA Acting

Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. The Final Rule explained that

APHIS’s actions were necessary to “strengthen enforcement of the HPA and regulations, and help protect horses from the cruel and inhumane practice of soring and eliminate the unfair competitive advantage that sore horses have over horses, that are not sore.” Exhibit A at 5.

84. The Final Rule listed an effective date of January 1, 2018 for all sections, “except for §§ 11.02 and 11.14, which are effective [Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the

Federal Register].” Id. at 2. The first of these two sections — § 11.02 — bans action devices, and the second of these two sections — § 11.14 — eliminates HIO responsibility for training inspectors and imposes various requirements for inspectors. The fact that these two sections were to become effective quickly underscores the recognition by USDA and APHIS of the need for immediate action towards achieving the HPA’s statutory mandate to end horse soring, while the remainder of the Final Rule’s replacement scheme would require additional phase-in time.

85. The Final Rule abolishes the HIO-administrated scheme with licensed DQP inspectors and replaces it with an APHIS-administered scheme with independent inspectors who are veterinarians or veterinary technicians trained, licensed and monitored by APHIS. In other words, the Final Rule abolishes the scheme in the HPA Regulations and replaces it with a wholly

31 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 32 of 46

new one. In support of this decision, APHIS provided a detailed and specific legal and policy rationale and cited to various sources of evidence. Specifically, APHIS:

• Cited the Audit Report’s conclusion that the DQP program “is not adequate to

effectively enforce the Act and regulations.” Id. at 3.

• Concluded that evidence from the Audit Report “clearly demonstrates” a

conflict of interest and the “ineffectiveness of the resulting system.” Id. at 66.

• Concluded that the Audit Report’s recommendation was consistent with the

findings of USDA’s Office of the Judicial Officer, which issues final decisions

on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture for purposes of judicial review. Id. at

4. The Secretary, through the Judicial Offer, “has routinely found that

inspections of horses conducted by [DQPs] are less probative than inspections

conducted by the USDA Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs). In making such

findings, the Secretary has noted that DQPs often conduct ‘short and cursory’

inspections given the volume of horses they must inspect prior to HPA-covered

events, that DQPs are not veterinarians and do not maintain the same

qualifications, and that DQPs must engage with members of the industry on a

daily basis, which may make them reluctant to notify management that a horse

is sore.” Id.

• Cited USDA Secretary’s conclusion that “DQPs often conduct ‘short and

cursory’ inspections given the volume of horses they must inspect prior to HPA-

covered events,. . . . and that DQPs must engage with members of the industry

on a daily basis, which may make them reluctant to notify management that a

horse is sore.” Id.

32 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 33 of 46

86. The Final Rule also prohibits the use on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses of all action devices, including chains under six ounces, as well as pads and wedges (with exceptions for certain protective and therapeutic devices). Id. at 126. In support of this decision, which APHIS concluded was “necessary” to prevent soring, the Agency again provided a detailed and specific legal and policy rationale and cited to various sources of evidence. Specifically,

APHIS:

• Cited its “experience from administering and enforcing the Act that chains and

similar action devices currently allowed under the regulations are used alone,

or in conjunction with certain prohibited substances, to sore horses. Restricting

the use of such devices on horses at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction

will reduce instances of soring in these horses and will help to promote fair

competition at HPA-covered events.” Id. at 25-26.

• Cited the Agency’s own observations that soring “can and does occur with the

use of prohibited substances and/or action devices such as chains and rollers of

nearly any weight, including the 6 ounce weight limit currently in the

regulations.” Id. at 19.

• Discussed “our experience in administering and enforcing the HPA [which]

indicates that soring has continued to occur through the use of hoof pads.

Approximately 90 percent of the alleged violations documented at HPA-

covered events from FY 2010 through 2015 involved horses wearing pads.” Id.

at 30. In this context, APHIS also cited a study conducted at the Auburn

University School of Veterinary Medicine, which found not only that raising a

horse’s heels through the use of pads and wedges alone results in signs of

33 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 34 of 46

inflammation, but also that pads obscure the solar surface of the foot, thereby

limiting inspectors’ ability to detect soring through physical and visual

inspection. Id. at 31.

• Noted that the Agency’s observations with regard to chains, rollers and similar

action devices are consistent with the positions held by the AVMA and the

AAEP. Id. at 18.

• Noted that while “[a] considerable number of commenters supported our

proposal to prohibit the application of action devices and pads on a horse’s

limbs for animal welfare reasons, while others supported the prohibition

because such items allowed sored horses to gain a competitive advantage.” Id .

at 20.

87. The Final Rule Press Release, which was posted as a “Stakeholder Announcement” on APHIS’s News and Announcement webpage, described the substance of the Final Rule in detail and stated, “Under the final regulation[,] APHIS will license, train, and oversee independent, third party inspectors . . . . Beginning January 1, 2018, management of horse shows . . . must appoint and retain [third party inspectors] to inspect horses.” Exhibit C at 1.

Public Reaction to the Final Rule

88. In the days after USDA posted the Final Rule and the Final Rule Press Release on its website, news websites and industry blogs disseminated the text of the Rule and described the anticipated effects of the Rule on the industry.

89. On January 14, 2017, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who opposed the Final

Rule, issued a press release lamenting that USDA had “finalized a rule” banning action devices and requiring third-party, USDA-licensed inspectors. The release states, “On Jan. 13, USDA

34 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 35 of 46

published a final rule . . . ,” and sets forth a purported rationale as to why the Final Rule could have a “significant negative effect” on the industry. Press Release, Sen. Lamar Alexander, New Obama

Rule Jeopardizes Tennessee Walking Horse Tradition (Jan. 14, 2017), https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/1/alexander-new-obama-rule- jeopardizes-tennessee-walking-horse-tradition.

90. On January 17, 2017, a widely-known horse industry website, thehorse.com, posted an article titled, “Chains, Stacks Banned in Walking , Exhibition.” The article begins: “A new USDA [] rule has banned the use of chains and stacks in the training and exhibition of Tennessee Walking Horses . . . . The final rule published on Jan. 13 specifically prohibits the use of action devices . . . .” Pat Raia, Chains, Stacks Banned in Walking Horse Training,

Exhibition (Jan. 17, 2017), https://thehorse.com/19485/chains-stacks-banned-in-walking-horse- training-exhibition/.

91. On one “Daily Equine Forum,” a user wrote in a January 14, 2017 post, “Big Lick is DEAD!!!” “Finally, the horrible abuse . . . on innocent horses is over or at least there is a law in place banning the soring . . . .” The user included a hyperlink to the Final Rule Press Release.

See “Big Lick is DEAD,” Daily Equine Forums (Jan. 14, 2017), https://www.dailyequine.com/sho wthread.php?tid=9027&tid=9027 (last visited Aug. 6, 2019).

92. Several industry sites linked directly to the text of the Final Rule, including

Americanfarriers.com, Nationalhorseman.com, Morganhorse.com, Paulickreport.com, and Horse- canada.com.

USDA Transmits The Final Rule To OFR

93. On or around Monday, January 16, 2017, USDA transmitted the Final Rule to OFR.

The Final Rule was signed by David Howard, USDA Acting Deputy Under Secretary for

Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and was dated January 11, 2017. OFR posted the Final Rule

35 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 36 of 46

for “public inspection” on Thursday, January 19, 2017, and assigned a publication date of Tuesday,

January 24, 2017. The document was hyperlinked in PDF file format on OFR’s January 19, 2017 online “Public Inspection Issue,” under document number 2017-00854 (the “Posted Final Rule”).

USDA Secretly Repeals The Final Rule

94. On Friday, January 20, 2017, Inauguration Day, President Trump’s Chief of Staff

Reince Priebus issued a memorandum directed to agency heads entitled, “Regulatory Freeze

Pending Review” (the “Regulatory Review Memo”). The Regulatory Review Memo directed agencies to “immediately withdraw” any regulations that “have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register” (the “Withdrawal Directive”). See Memorandum from The

White House to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Jan. 20, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-heads-executive-departments- agencies/.

95. On Monday, January 23, 2017, on a secret basis—let alone without any reasoned explanation, notice or solicitation of public comment—APHIS’s Chief of Regulatory Analysis and

Development submitted a letter to Oliver Potts, Director of OFR, requesting the withdrawal of the

Final Rule, which was “currently on public inspection and scheduled to publish in the Federal

Register on January 24, 2017” (hereinafter the “Withdrawal Request”). HSUS was subsequently able to obtain a copy of this letter, attached as Exhibit D.

96. Presumably based on the Withdrawal Request, OFR did not publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register as scheduled on January 24, 2017. OFR subsequently updated the January

19, 2017 online Public Inspection Issue to read: “Editorial Note: APHIS requested the withdrawal of this document after it was on public inspection. It will remain on public inspection until the

36 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 37 of 46

close of business on January 24. A copy of the withdrawal request is available at the Office of the

Federal Register.”

97. On or about January 24, 2017, USDA removed the text of the Final Rule Press

Release from its website, replacing the text with an announcement of the withdrawal (the

“Withdrawal Announcement,” attached as Exhibit E). The announcement reads: “On January 13,

APHIS announced a final rule, making changes to the Horse Protection Act regulations. That final rule has been withdrawn, in accordance with a memorandum issued to Federal agencies January

20, to ensure the new policy team has an opportunity to review it. This is similar to procedures issued by previous administrations.” As of August 13, 2019, the Final Rule and the Withdrawal

Announcement remain posted for public viewing on the USDA website; however, as discussed below, subsequent actions and communications by USDA and APHIS indicate that the Withdrawal

Request is not accurate or genuine, and instead, USDA and APHIS have not engaged in any substantive review process of the Final Rule, but instead, have simply decided to repeal it and ignore the long prior history demonstrating the gross inadequacies of the HIO-administered system, apparently hoping that their illegal action will go unchallenged and unchecked.

USDA Has Placed The Repealed Final Rule On “Inactive Status”

98. On information and belief, USDA and APHIS have not cancelled the Withdrawal

Request or resubmitted the Final Rule for publication in the Federal Register. APHIS has not enforced any of the provisions of the Final Rule. The withdrawal of the Final Rule from publication in the Federal Register, along with USDA’s and APHIS’s refusal to enforce any of the mandates of the Final Rule, together constitute a repeal of the Final Rule.

99. On March 23, 2018, following multiple attempts to engage APHIS to discuss its repeal of the Final Rule, HSUS wrote to USDA regarding the status of the Final Rule. In a letter

37 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 38 of 46

dated May 7, 2018, APHIS Administrator Kevin Shea acknowledged that the Final Rule is now on the “list of inactive actions” published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

Mr. Shea stated that APHIS included the Final Rule on OMB’s “list of inactive actions” pursuant to Executive Order 13771, which was issued by the Trump Administration on January 30, 2017, and ordered agencies not to promulgate new regulations without offsetting their costs by the repeal of at least two existing regulations. Mr. Shea wrote that, under the mandate of Executive Order

13771, other “competing priorities” prevent APHIS from completing the HPA rulemaking process, specifically: (a) amendments to procedures for applying for licenses and renewals under the

Animal Welfare Act (AWA); and (b) amendments to AWA license requirements to exempt small dealers and exhibitors. Mr. Shea wrote that “[e]xpediting action on the HPA rulemaking would shift resources” away from these “priority rulemakings.” As of August 13, 2019, APHIS has proposed the former regulation, and completed the final amendments to the AWA license requirements. Mr. Shea wrote: “Instead of actively working on the HPA final rule at this time,

USDA has continued to promote HPA compliance by building alignment in the inspection processes of our inspectors and of DQPs . . . .” Mr. Shea’s letter is attached as Exhibit F.

100. On February 28, 2019, the United States Equestrian Foundation (“USEF”) wrote to the Secretary urging the Secretary to publish the Final Rule. In a letter dated April 18, 2019,

Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue acknowledged a written request to publish the Final Rule but did not state any intentions with regard to the Final Rule. Instead, he wrote: “We are [] working closely with [HIOs] and [DQPs] to ensure that HPA inspection processes and findings are consistent whether USDA is present at events or not. . . . We believe continuing with these initiatives will bring us closer to achieving the HPA’s dual purposes of ending soring and promoting fair competition.” Neither the Shea Letter nor the Perdue Letter addresses the inherent

38 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 39 of 46

conflict of interest within the HIO-administered scheme with licensed DQP inspectors that Final

Rule was designed to eliminate, nor address its prohibitions on action devices, pads and wedges regarded as “necessary” to achieve the HPA mandate to end horse soring.

101. On June 7, 2019, representatives of HSUS, along with representatives from other organizations, attended a meeting at USDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. with Bernadette

Juarez, who at the time held the position of APHIS Deputy Administrator for Animal Care, which is the office within APHIS charged with overseeing the HPA. During this meeting, Ms. Juarez characterized the Final Rule as long-term inactive, with USDA and APHIS having no present intention to move forward on it.

102. As of August 13, 2019, USDA has not placed the repealed Final Rule on OMB’s

Unified Regulatory Agenda for any portion of 2017, 2018, or 2019. Instead, the Final Rule can be found on the “inactive” list available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgen daInactiveSearchResult?viewall=y.

Horse Soring Continues Today Despite HPA’s Nearly 50-Year Statutory Mandate To End It

103. According to the limited data published by APHIS, it is clear that widespread soring continues through the present—and in fact may be becoming even more prevalent. The total number of violations identified were almost twice as high in 2018 as in 2017. See ANIMAL AND

PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERV ., USDA HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM : FY 2018 QUARTER 1-

QUARTER 3 HORSE INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION (HIO) INSPECTION DATA , https:// www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/hp/FY2018_Q1-3_HPA_HIO_Inspection_Data

_Summary_Report_Card.pdf (last visited Aug. 6, 2019); ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION

SERV ., USDA HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM , FY 2017 HORSE INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION (HIO)

INSPECTION DATA , https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animalwelfare/downloads/hp/fy17-hio-inspection

39 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 40 of 46

-data.pdf (last visited Aug. 6, 2019). Yet, this increase in violations was almost entirely the result of additional violations identified when USDA VMOs were present and observing DQP inspections: DQPs were almost three times as likely to issue citations when VMOs were present than when they were absent. See id. This is notable given that exhibitors frequently leave horse shows with their horses when they become aware that VMOs have arrived, leaving fewer horses available for inspection. Thus, the rate of violations observed when VMOs are present underrepresents the extent to which soring occurs. Moreover, VMOs attend only a fraction of the shows held throughout the year—64 in the first three quarters of 2018 and 52 in 2017. See ANIMAL

AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERV ., FY2018 USDA HORSE PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT , https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/hp/FY2018-Horse-Program-Activity-

Report.pdf (last visited Aug. 6, 2019) .

104. Certain HIOs have also failed to find any violations when VMOs are not present at horse shows. “SHOW” (or “Sound Horses, Honest Judging, Objective Inspections, Winning

Fairly”), an HIO that, according to APHIS, has the best record of detecting violations, found violations in only 4.3% of inspections when VMOs were absent versus 9.4% when VMOs were present—more than double the percentage of violations. See ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH

INSPECTION SERV ., supra USDA HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM : FY 2018 QUARTER 1- QUARTER 3

HORSE INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION (HIO) INSPECTION DATA . APHIS nevertheless opted not to send

VMOs to some of the largest shows in the industry if SHOW was conducting the inspections, including the May 23–25, 2019 “Fun Show” in Shelbyville, Tennessee, which is one of the three largest shows for Big Lick horses.

105. A large percentage of horse show entrants continue to test positively for certain chemicals associated with soring. In 2017, APHIS reported that 58.2 percent of Big Lick horses

40 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 41 of 46

tested positive for banned chemicals; in 2018, 66.15 percent of such horses tested positive. See

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERV ., USDA APHIS HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM :

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE REPORT (2017), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/ downloads/prohibited-substance-reports/fy17-prohibited-substance-report.pdf; ANIMAL AND

PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERV ., USDA APHIS HORSE PROTECTION PROGRAM : PROHIBITED

SUBSTANCE REPORT (2018), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/ prohibited-substance-reports/2018/FY18-Prohibited-Substance-Report.pdf.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the APA – Unlawful Repeal of the Final Rule Without Notice and Comment)

106. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

107. The Final Rule constituted a final agency action and was duly issued, prescribed or promulgated by USDA under the APA and the HPA.

108. In requesting that OFR withhold the Final Rule from Federal Register publication after it had been placed on public inspection and subsequently refusing to enforce its requirements,

USDA and APHIS have unlawfully repealed the Final Rule in violation of the APA’s requirements for due process, including a notice proposing such repeal, with a reasoned explanation for its basis and the opportunity for public comment. See 5 U.S.C. § 553.

109. USDA’s repeal of the Final Rule was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A), and was “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D).

41 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 42 of 46

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the APA – Unlawful Change in Agency Position Without Reasoned Explanation)

110. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

111. The Final Rule reflected the culmination of the rulemaking process, including

“consideration” of the “written data, views, or arguments” of interested persons and “a concise general statement of [the Final Rule’s] basis and purpose.” See 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).

112. APHIS concluded in the Final Rule that the HPA Regulations were inadequate to prevent horse soring and must be amended to achieve the HPA’s statutory mandate to end horse soring.

113. By requesting OFR not to publish the Final Rule and then subsequently refusing to enforce its requirements, USDA and APHIS have unlawfully repealed the Final Rule without providing any reasoned explanation for their change in position. USDA’s and APHIS’s actions resulted in reversal of the legal, policy and factual findings that necessitated the adoption of the

Final Rule, without any reasoned explanation to support that reversal. Such actions, therefore, are fundamentally and without question “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the APA – Moving The Final Rule To “Inactive Status” Without Notice and Comment or a Reasoned Explanation)

114. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

115. The Final Rule constituted a final agency action, was duly issued, prescribed or promulgated by USDA under the APA and the HPA, and reflected the culmination of the

42 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 43 of 46

rulemaking process, including “consideration” of the “written data, views, or arguments” of interested persons and “a concise general statement of [the Final Rule’s] basis and purpose.” See

5 U.S.C. § 553(c).

116. In moving the Final Rule to “Inactive Status” without providing any reasoned explanation for doing so, and without notice and comment, USDA and APHIS have violated 5

U.S.C. §§ 553, 706(2).

117. Such action also was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A), and was “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the FRA and APA – Allowing Withdrawal of a Duly-Issued, Prescribed or Promulgated Final Rule for a Reason other than Error Correction and Failing to Publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register in Accordance with OFR’s Regulations)

118. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

119. By failing to publish the Final Rule after it was posted for public inspection for a reason other than error-correction, OFR exceeded its statutory authority under the FRA and its own regulations.

120. By assigning a publication date of Tuesday, January 24, 2017, instead of Monday,

January 23, 2017, OFR violated its own regulations. This violation was not without prejudice: By assigning a publication date of January 24, OFR allowed APHIS an extra day after the federal government was closed on Friday, January 20, 2019, for the Inauguration to request that the Final

Rule not be published in the Federal Register.

43 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 44 of 46

121. OFR’s failure to publish the Final Rule was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with [the FRA, 44 U.S.C. §§ 1501-10, and associated regulations, 1 C.F.R. Parts 17 and 18].” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the HPA and APA – Repealing The Duly-Issued, Prescribed or Promulgated Final Rule And Leaving In Place The HPA Regulations That Fail To Do What Is “Necessary” To Achieve The HPA’s Statutory Mandate To End Horse Soring)

122. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

123. The HPA contains broad and comprehensive prohibitions on horse soring that clearly impose a statutory mandate to end it. See 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (“Unlawful Acts”).

124. USDA and APHIS are required by the HPA to issue “rules and regulations”

“necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1828 (“Rules and

Regulations”).

125. By repealing the Final Rule and leaving in place the HPA Regulations long- recognized as wholly inadequate to prevent horse soring, USDA and APHIS are acting contrary to the statutory mandate of the HPA to end horse soring and exceeding the authority granted by the

HPA. This constitutes agency action inconsistent with its statutory obligations, and thus is “an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with [the HPA].” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment as follows:

A. Declaring that USDA’s withdrawal of the Final Rule without a reasoned

explanation, notice or an opportunity for public comment violates the APA and

HPA;

B. Vacating USDA’s repeal of the Final Rule;

44 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 45 of 46

C. Declaring that OFR abused its discretion or exceeded its statutory authority when

it failed to publish the Final Rule and permitted USDA to withdraw the Final

Rule;

D. Vacating OFR’s decision to comply with USDA’s withdrawal request;

E. Compelling publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register;

F. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

G. Granting such other relief that the Court considers just and proper.

45 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 46 of 46

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of August, 2019.

/s/Claudia M. O’Brien Claudia M. O’Brien (D.C. Bar No. 447354) Julia A. Hatcher (D.C. Bar No. 412755)* Laura J. Glickman (D.C. Bar No. 995597) Kelly Z. Walters (D.C. Bar No. 1023492)* James D. Friedland (Ill. Bar. No. 6322526)** Julianne C. Brauer (N.Y. Bar No. 5609177)** Sally Meyer Cohen (Ill. Bar. No. 6326730)** Tyler S. Williams (D.C. Bar No. 888242297) LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201

*Admission forthcoming **Appearance forthcoming

Kimberly D. Ockene (D.C. Bar No. 461191) Ralph E. Henry (D.C. Bar No. 982586) The Humane Society of the United States 1255 23rd Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 [email protected] Telephone: (202) 285-1388 Facsimile: (202)778-6134

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

46 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 150

EXHIBIT A Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 150

BILLING CODE: 3410-34-P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 11

[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009]

RIN 0579-AE19

Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and Other Amendments

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the horse protection regulations to provide that the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will train and license horse protection inspectors (HPIs)

to inspect horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions for compliance with the Horse

Protection Act. Those changes to the regulations will strengthen enforcement of the Horse

Protection Act and regulations and relieve horse industry organizations or associations of their

regulatory burdens and responsibilities. We are also establishing a process by which APHIS can

deny an application for a HPI license or revoke the license of a HPI who does not meet the

minimum requirements, who fails to follow the designated inspection procedures, or who

otherwise fails to carry out his or her duties and responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. In

addition, we are making several changes to the requirements that pertain to the management of

any horse show, exhibition, sale, and auction, as well as changes to the list of devices, equipment,

substances, and practices that are prohibited to prevent the soring of horses. We are also revising

the inspection procedures that inspectors are required to perform. These actions will help to Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 150

protect horses from the cruel and inhumane practice of soring and eliminate unfair competitive

advantage that sore horses have over horses that are not sore.

DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 2018, except for §§ 11.2 and 11.14, which are effective

[Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, Director, National

Policy Staff, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737;

(301) 851-3751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of Regulatory Action

In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1821-1831), referred to

below as the Act or the HPA, to eliminate the practice of soring by prohibiting the showing or selling of sore horses. The regulations in 9 CFR part 11 implement the Act, including the amendments passed by Congress in 1976.

In the Act, Congress found and declared that the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane,

and that sore horses compete unfairly with horses which are not sore. The Act states that the

term “sore” when used to describe a horse means that:

• An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person

to any limb of a horse,

• Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse,

• Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by

a person on any limb of a horse,

2 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 150

• Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a

person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application,

infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected

to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or when walking, trotting,

or otherwise moving, except that such term does not include such an application,

infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a

horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine

in the State in which such treatment was given.

The HPA establishes a multi-tiered structure to end the practice of soring. First, it makes it unlawful for any person to show, exhibit, sell, or transport sore horses, or to use any prohibited equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions.

Second, it holds horse owners responsible for allowing such unlawful activities. Third, it entrusts management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions (referred to as

“management,” below) with ensuring that sore horses do not unfairly compete with horses that are not sore.

Shortly after the HPA was passed in 1970, APHIS established provisions to implement the Act, including restrictions on the use of certain equipment, devices, and substances to prevent the soring of horses. During the intervening decades, substantial noncompliance continues to exist among Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at horse shows and other regulated events. In addition, APHIS has observed from its experience in administering and enforcing the

Act and regulations (including, among other things, thorough compliance inspections, investigations, enforcement of alleged violations, oversight of industry-based inspection programs, and outreach to the horse industry) that a relationship continues to exist between the

3 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 150

use of certain permitted items and soring in horses, such as the use of permitted action devices alone or in conjunction with prohibited substances.

In addition, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Office of the

Inspector General (OIG) evaluated APHIS’ oversight of the program in September 2010 and concluded that the current inspection program, in which horse industry organizations or associations (HIOs) train and license private inspectors to conduct compliance inspections at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, is not adequate to effectively enforce the Act and regulations. Among other recommendations made in its 2010 audit report, the OIG recommended that APHIS eliminate the current program and establish by regulation that inspectors will be independent, USDA-accredited veterinarians that perform inspections to assess whether horses are sore, as well as procedures for disciplining inspectors who do not inspect horses according to Agency standards.

The OIG’s recommendation is consistent with findings of USDA’s Office of the Judicial

Officer, which issues final decisions on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture for purposes of judicial review. The Secretary of Agriculture, through the Judicial Officer, has routinely found that inspections of horses conducted by private inspectors, referred to as Designated Qualified

Persons (DQPs), are less probative than inspections conducted by USDA Veterinary Medical

Officers (VMOs). In making such findings, the Secretary has noted that DQPs often conduct

“short and cursory” inspections given the volume of horses they must inspect prior to HPA- covered events, that DQPs are not veterinarians and do not maintain the same qualifications, and that DQPs must engage with members of the industry on a daily basis, which may make them reluctant to notify management that a horse is sore.

4 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 150

Summary of Major Provisions in the Final Rule

The following changes to the regulations in 9 CFR part 11 will strengthen enforcement of the HPA and regulations, and help to protect horses from the cruel and inhumane practice of soring and eliminate the unfair competitive advantage that sore horses have over horses that are not sore:

• Prohibiting the use of action devices, other than certain boots, and associated

lubricants on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at horse shows,

exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

• Prohibiting the use of pads and wedges on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking

horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, except for therapeutic pads

and wedges.

• Amending existing access, space, and facility requirements for management.

• Having APHIS assume the training and licensing of third-party, independent

inspectors (referred to as Horse Protection Inspectors or HPIs, below) that may be

appointed and retained by management to conduct inspections at shows, exhibitions,

sales, and auctions, and removing from the regulations all regulatory responsibilities

specifically assigned to HIOs.

• Establishing the licensing eligibility and training requirements for HPIs and clarifying

inspection procedures.

• Requiring management to have a farrier physically present to assist HPIs at horse

shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that allow Tennessee Walking Horses or

racking horses to participate in therapeutic pads and wedges if more than 150 horses

are entered, and have a farrier on call if 150 or fewer horses are entered.

5 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 150

• Amending management recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

II. Legal Authority for the Action

Section 1823 of the Act, as amended, requires the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to

prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by the management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to

otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of enforcing the Act. Section 1824 prohibits the entry

and participation of horses wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or

substance which the Secretary by regulation under Section 1828 prohibits to prevent the soring

of horses. Section 1828 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue such rules and

regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act.

III. Costs and Benefits

The benefits of the rule are expected to justify the costs, but we were not able to quantify

them. We estimate the potential total annual costs to shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions with

Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses for this farrier requirement may range from

$10,000 to $50,000, but this is an upper bound. This potential cost is the only additional cost we

anticipate affected entities incurring to comply with this rule. The changes to the horse

protection regulations will help to eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of soring horses and

the unfair competitive advantage that sore horses have over horses that are not sore. The rule is

not expected to adversely impact communities in which HPA-covered events are held because

such events are expected to continue; owners are motivated to show their prized horses and will

continue to participate in shows. Therefore, due to the reasons summarized here and explained

in the analysis accompanying this rule, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health

6 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 150

Inspection Service certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

IV. Discussion of Comments

On July 26, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 49112-49137, Docket No.

APHIS-2011-0009) a proposal1 to amend the Horse Protection regulations to provide that APHIS

will train and license inspectors to conduct inspections at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and

auctions for compliance with the Act. We also proposed to amend the prohibitions on devices,

equipment, substances, and practices that can cause soring or are otherwise prohibited under the

Act and regulations.

On September 22, 2016, we published a notice that extended the comment period on the

proposal by 30 days and provided a clarification regarding weight restrictions on

(81 FR 65307, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009). We also gathered public comments at four public

hearings, in Murfreesboro, TN, on August 9, 2016; Lexington, KY, on August 10, 2016;

Sacramento, CA, on August 16, 2016; and Riverdale, MD, on September 6, 2016, as well as a virtual public hearing on September 15, 2016.2

We received 130,975 comments on the proposed rule through electronic submission, U.S.

mail, and courier, as well as comments included in the transcripts from the public hearings. We

carefully reviewed the comments we received. The comments were from State and Federal

elected officials, including current and former U.S. Senators and Representatives, State

agricultural agencies, farm bureaus, gaited horse organizations, trotting horse federations and

1 To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, the comments we received, and the public hearing transcripts, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0009. 2 Transcripts for each of the public hearings are available at the Web address included in footnote 1 or by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.

7 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 9 of 150

organizations, other domestic and foreign horse industry organizations, veterinarians and veterinary associations, horse rescue and animal welfare advocacy organizations, horse owners and trainers, farriers, small business owners, and the general public. We address the issues in the order that the provisions to which they pertain appear in the regulatory text of the proposed rule.

Comments on issues and data pertaining to the economic analysis have been responded to in the follow-up economic analysis published with, and summarized in, this final rule.

In the proposed rule, we proposed to reorganize part 11 so that the requirements would be clearer and better organized. However, upon further review and in consideration of comments received that highlighted areas of confusion, we have decided to retain much of the existing organization of the regulations. The following chart provides the derivation of the sections from the existing regulations to the proposed rule and now to the final rule to assist the reader. The sections and paragraphs listed under the table heading “Final Rule” were derived either conceptually or specifically from the corresponding sections and paragraphs listed under the table headings “Existing Regulations” and “Proposed Rule.”

Derivation Table

Existing Regulations Proposed Rule Final Rule § 11.1 § 11.1 § 11.1 § 11.2 § 11.2 and 11.4 § 11.2 § 11.3 § 11.3 § 11.3 § 11.4 § 11.5 (except (b) and (c)) § 11.4 § 11.5 § 11.5(a) – (c), § 11.9(a) § 11.5 § 11.6 § 11.9(b) (except for (b)(3)(ii)) § 11.6(a) § 11.7 § 11.6 § 11.14 N/A § 11.9(b)(3)(ii) § 11.5(c) § 11.20 § 11.10(b) and (c), § 11.9(a) and (b), and § 11.12(a) § 11.15(a) N/A § 11.10(a) § 11.9(c) and § 11.12(a)

8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 10 of 150

§ 11.21 § 11.12(b)(2) – (d) § 11.6(b) and § 11.15(b) – (d) § 11.22 § 11.11(a) § 11.10 § 11.23 § 11.11(b) § 11.11 § 11.24 § 11.11(c) § 11.12(b) and (c) § 11.25 Removed Removed § 11.40 § 11.13 § 11.13 § 11.41 Removed Removed

Definitions (Proposed § 11.1, Final § 11.1)

We proposed to revise the definition of APHIS representative to mean any employee or

official of APHIS. While the existing definition also includes “any officer or employee of any

State agency who is authorized by the Administrator to perform inspections or any other

functions authorized by the Act, including the inspection of the records of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or horse auction,” we are unaware of APHIS utilizing State officers or employees to perform such inspections or functions. We received no comments on this proposed

revision and are adopting the proposed revisions to this definition in this final rule.

We proposed no substantive changes to the definition of action device, but proposed to

add two supplemental examples of such devices, namely, beads and bangles.

Several commenters asked if protective bell boots are defined as an action device.

As defined in the existing regulations, an action device means any boot, collar, chain,

roller, or other devices which encircle or are placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a

horse in such a manner that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg so as

to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band, or fetlock joint. Boots, including

protective bell boots, are included in the definition of action device. However, as we state in the

discussion pertaining to proposed § 11.2 below, we are amending the regulations to prohibit the

use of action devices, other than boots that meet certain requirements, on all horses at horse

9 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 11 of 150

shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. Because certain boots can be used to cause soring, we consider bell boots to fall within the definition of action device.

One commenter asked us to include a definition of "pad" in the regulations. The

commenter expressed concern that trainers will create metal shoes that cover the foot and will

call it a shoe instead of a pad, and that they will use the pad to hide evidence of soring.

As we state in the discussion of proposed § 11.2 below, we are prohibiting the use of

pads and wedges on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at horse shows, exhibitions,

sales, and auctions, except for pads and wedges used for therapeutic purposes, and are retaining

the existing regulations pertaining to the use of pads, including the prohibitions on the use of

pads made of non-pliant material, for all horses. Accordingly, pads described by the commenter,

i.e., a metal pad covering the underside of the hoof, will continue to be prohibited.

We proposed to add a definition for the term custodian, and to revise the definition for

the term exhibitor to include the term custodian.

One commenter disagreed with adding the term custodian and its proposed definition,

stating that it reasonably could be construed to cover an auctioneer or other persons who assist in

facilitating the sale of a horse who are not the seller. The same commenter also disagreed with

the revised definition of exhibitor as it could be construed to include an auctioneer or other

persons who assist in facilitating the sale of a horse who are not the seller.

Upon further review and based on the comments received, we agree that the proposed

definition of custodian may be confusing and in certain respects redundant with the definition of

exhibitor. Accordingly, we are retaining the long-standing definition of exhibitor and not adding

a new definition for the term custodian in this final rule.

10 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 12 of 150

We proposed no changes to the definition for horse, which means any member of the species Equus caballus. One commenter representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization asked that we modify the definition of horse by adding to it “or offspring of Equus caballus, such as a ,” to reflect the increasing involvement of in gaited events.

We proposed no changes to the definition of horse and are therefore making no changes to that definition based on this comment.

The same commenter also stated that the vulnerability to soring, and not a specific breed, is the true focus of the proposed rule. For this reason, the commenter suggested that we add to the regulations a definition of “focal horse” to mean “any horse that performs with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring. Focal horses are often, but not always, of

Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking horse, or related breed ancestry,” and suggested that we substitute this language for the phrase “Tennessee Walking Horses, racking horses, and related breeds” throughout the rule.

As we explain below, we are not adopting the term “related breeds” or similar terms in this final rule. The HPA makes it unlawful for any person to show, exhibit, sell, or transport a sore horse, regardless of breed, or to use any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance that the Secretary prohibits by regulation to prevent the soring of horses in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions. To help effectuate these provisions, the regulations have long contained requirements that apply to all horses, as well as additional requirements for Tennessee Walking

Horses and racking horses. While we are strengthening the requirements pertaining to Tennessee

Walking Horses and racking horses in this final rule to address the substantial noncompliance that continues to exist among those horses at HPA-covered events, we continue to consider what additional requirements are necessary, if any, for other breeds of horses that present a concern of

11 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 13 of 150

soring. If, in the future, APHIS determines that additional requirements are needed for other breeds of horses, we will initiate a rulemaking and solicit public comment on any proposed amendments.

We proposed no substantive changes to the definition in the current regulations for horse exhibition, which means a public display of any horses, singly or in groups, but not in competition. Similarly, we proposed no substantive changes to the definition of horse show to mean a public display of any horses, in competition. Neither definition includes events where speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades, or trail rides.

A commenter representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization asked APHIS to narrow the definitions of horse exhibition and horse show to exclude all events “where soring intrinsically conveys no advantage, in any aspect or element, and is therefore naturally absent.”

They asked APHIS to incorporate this exclusion into the proposed definition to go along with the exclusion of events where speed is a prime factor. Another commenter representing a national equestrian federation suggested that we add to the definition an exclusion for any competitions licensed or endorsed by the National Governing Body for equestrian sport under the Ted Stevens

Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. Another commenter asked why racing events are excluded.

Because we proposed no substantive changes to these definitions, we are making no changes in response to these comments.

We also proposed to clarify the definition of inspection to revise it to mean any visual, physical, and diagnostic means approved by APHIS to determine compliance with the Act and regulations.

One commenter disagreed with our inclusion of “approved by APHIS” in the proposed definition. The commenter stated that it is vague and intrusive, and should be included only if

12 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 14 of 150

APHIS adds language to qualify that its inspection procedures “are lawful and

scientifically/medically reasonable and accepted.” The commenter also stated that any such

means to be approved or used by APHIS should be adopted through a separate rulemaking.

We are making no changes in response to the comment. The proposed definition of

inspection is authorized by Section 1823 of the HPA, which provides that an inspection extends

“to all things (including records) bearing on whether the requirements of the Act have been complied with.” The proposed definition is lawful and valid for detecting soring in horses and

otherwise determining compliance with the HPA. We also consider the phrase “approved by

APHIS” to be sufficiently clear within the context of the proposed definition.

We proposed to remove the definition for lubricant because such substances are

frequently used to reduce friction caused by action devices on the limbs of horses bearing chains

and other action devices. Because we proposed to prohibit all action devices, except for certain

boots which do not require lubricants, a definition for lubricants would no longer be necessary.

One commenter disagreed with our proposal to consider lubricants as a prohibited

substance, noting that some lubricants are applied to the hooves of trotting breeds to prevent

cracking.

While we agree that some lubricants are applied to the hooves of horses to prevent

cracking, based on our observations made in enforcing the Act and regulations, lubricants have

also been used in ways that have caused soring of horses, when applied to the extremities above

the hoof. Therefore, in this final rule, we clarify that all substances are prohibited on the

extremities above the hoof of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.

We proposed to retain the definition for the term sore as it exists in the current

regulations, which closely follows the wording of the definition contained in the Act.

13 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 15 of 150

A commenter noted that in our proposed definition of sore we excluded the phrase “by a

person” with reference to application, infliction, and use of soring agents and practices. The

commenter noted that “by a person” is included in the current definition of sore in the regulations

and requested that we restore the existing phrase to the proposed regulations. Similarly, another

commenter stated that USDA has violated the constitutional right for owners to show their horses

by proposing to implement a definition of soring not countenanced by the Act.

The changes to the definition of sore in the proposed rule were inadvertent. In this final

rule, we are mirroring the phrasing for sore as it appears in the Act.

A commenter suggested that we amend the definition of sore so that it reflects gaits more

characteristic of events for which soring is a concern. Noting that horses subject to soring do not

typically perform a trot, the commenter recommended that we replace the phrase in the definition

“when the animal is walking, trotting, or otherwise moving” with the phrase “at the halt or in motion at the walk or any faster gait.”

We are making no changes in response to the commenter’s recommendation because the definition of sore is defined in the Act itself. Congress would need to amend the statute to

effectuate the change contemplated.

Another commenter asked us to add pressure shoeing and hoof trimming practices to the

definition of sore, stating that these are methods that are not covered by the proposed definition,

while another commenter suggested we add a definition of “pressure shoeing” to the regulations.

We are making no changes in response to the commenter’s recommendation. The

definition of sore includes a person who has engaged in a practice that results in a horse

suffering, or a horse that can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain, distress,

inflammation, or lameness while walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. Pressure shoeing and

14 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 16 of 150

hoof trimming practices that have, or can reasonably be expected to have, such a result are

included in this definition. This final rule discusses these practices in further detail below.

In the proposed regulations, we defined sponsoring organization to mean any person or

entity under whose responsibility a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is conducted.

One commenter noted that the current regulations employ the phrase “any person or entity under whose immediate auspices and responsibility” and asked that we retain the phrase as

it exists in the current regulations.

We acknowledge the commenter’s observation and are retaining the phrasing for

sponsoring organization as it appears in the existing regulations.

Finally, we proposed defining substance as any agent applied to a horse’s limbs while a

horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse

show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. This definition also includes any agent applied

to a horse’s limbs before or after a horse is shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise

present on the grounds at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.

Several commenters stated that the proposed definition of substance is overly broad and

noted that many substances applied to the limbs of horses, such as fly spray and liniments, are

beneficial or therapeutic. A commenter representing a national equine federation stated that by

imposing a total prohibition of all substances on limbs of horses, the USDA is barring the use of

all potentially therapeutic substances. One commenter added that the use of fly sprays reduces

the risk of horses being infected with mosquito and fly-borne diseases, including encephalitis.

Other commenters noted that trainers or other persons could be in noncompliance with the

regulations by inadvertently transferring commonly used substances such as soap and hand lotion

from their hands to the horse. Some commenters opposed our inclusion of language applying the

15 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 17 of 150

prohibition to “any horse on the grounds of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction,” with one noting that dirt and dust can collect on the limbs of a horse while simply walking the grounds at such events. Another commenter stated that liniments and other therapeutic substances are often applied to horses that are still on the grounds after they compete. Finally, one commenter representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization objected to the use of the term “agent” in the proposed definition of substance, stating that the term is vague and that virtually anything

could be construed as an agent, including water.

Upon further review, we have reconsidered adding a definition of substance to the

regulations. Aside from the proposal to remove the definition of “lubricant,” as discussed above,

the Department’s current definition of substance has been long standing (44 FR 25172, 25179-

25180). The Department received similar comments to those described above at the time it

originally adopted the definition, and explained, “Others commented that this proposal is too

restrictive and should allow the use of more substances. The prohibition of substances such as

sprays, dyes, and greases has received considerable attention. It is recognized that dyes could aid

in changing the identity of a horse and could act as a camouflage to signs or soring. Colored

substances, sprays, greases, and clear substances can act as vehicles to soring chemicals and

serve as an adhesive to foreign material which could be abrasive in nature. These substances

could then cause soring by direct or indirect means. For these reasons the Department will

continue to prohibit all substances on the legs of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses,

except as allowed under § 11.2(c).” (44 FR 25172, 25175).

Our concerns about the use of substances remain unchanged. In the proposed rule, we

published a table describing HPA-covered event inspection data from FY 2010-2015, including

results from testing for prohibited substances that are considered irritants or numbing and

16 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 18 of 150

masking agents. In FY 2015, for example, 500 horses were positive out of 768 tested, and over the 5 year period the average rate of positives was 69 percent. In this final rule, we are not codifying the proposed definition of substance, and, instead, will continue to rely on the

Agency’s long-standing interpretation of the term “substances” that has existed in the regulations since 1979. Aside from removing the allowance for lubricants provided by management to reduce friction caused by action devices on the limbs of horses, which is no longer necessary in light of the prohibitions on such devices, and the addition of the phrase

“otherwise on the grounds” of a horse show, exhibition sale, or auction, the prohibition on substances is relatively unchanged. Because of our continued detection of substances on the extremities of horses, the Department will prohibit all substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

One commenter suggested that we modify the definition of substance to mean "any agent applied to the horse’s limbs while a horse is shown… for which the Material Safety Data Sheet indicates irritation of the skin or mucous membranes." Another commenter asked that we clarify the definition to refer to any substance on the USDA prohibited substance list and incorporate the list by reference into the regulations.

We are making no change in response to the comment. Data sheets and an official

“prohibited substance” list are not able to provide an exhaustive account of all possible prohibited substances, including substances to mask pain and cover lesions.

17 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 19 of 150

Prohibited Actions, Practices, Devices, and Substances (Proposed § 11.2, Final § 11.2).

We proposed to make two editorial changes to the current § 11.2, “Prohibitions concerning exhibitors,” which we are not adopting in this final rule. Specifically, we proposed to

retitle this section as “Prohibited actions, practices, devices, and substances.” However, based on the organization of this final rule, we believe the current title more accurately captures the

content of this section and are making no changes to it in this final rule. In addition, we

proposed to combine the content of current paragraph (a) of § 11.2 with proposed paragraph (b).

However, for clarity and based on the organization of this final rule, we have retained the current

paragraph (a).

We proposed to add a new paragraph (a)(1) to § 11.2 that prohibits using any action

device as defined in proposed § 11.1 with respect to any Tennessee Walking Horse, racking

horse, or related breed that performs with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring

while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

We also proposed to add a new paragraph (a)(2) that prohibits using any hoof bands, wedges,

and pads with respect to any Tennessee Walking Horse, racking horse, or related breed that

performs with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring at any horse show,

exhibition, sale, or auction.

We noted in the proposed rule that, based on our observations, chains, rollers, and similar

action devices placed on a horse’s feet, when used alone or in combination with prohibited

substances on the pasterns of a horse can cause soring. Our observations are consistent with the

position held by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American

Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), that “when used in conjunction with chemical

irritants on the pastern of the horse’s foot, the motion of the action device creates a painful

18 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 20 of 150

response, resulting in a more exaggerated gait.” 3 We also cited a study4 conducted at the

Auburn University School of Veterinary Medicine from 1978 to 1982 (“the Auburn study”),

which was a multi-phased study conducted from September 1978 to December 1982 that

evaluated the effects of acute and chronic inflammatory responses on the front and hind limbs of

horses. Specifically, commenters opposed to the prohibition on action devices referred to Phase

11 of the study, the objective of which was to evaluate 2, 4, and 6 ounce chains without using

any other chemical or mechanical technique to induce inflammation. Horses were exercised for

2-3 weeks wearing 2, 4, and 6 ounce chains, after which it was determined that the use of 2, 4,

and 6 ounce chains for a duration of 2 to 3 weeks “did not produce any harmful effects to the

horses’ legs, with exception to some loss of hair from 6 oz. chains in the pastern areas.” Over

the decades since the completion of this study, our observations from administering and

enforcing the Act have indicated that soring can and does occur with the use of prohibited

substances and/or action devices such as chains and rollers of nearly any weight, including the 6

ounce weight limit currently in the regulations.

3 See https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/AnimalWelfare/Documents/AVMA-and- AAEP-Position-on-the-Use-of-Action-Devices-and-Performance-Packages-for-Tennessee- Walking-Horses.pdf?utm_source=press- release&utm_medium=160812&utm_campaign=policy&utm_term=link2&utm_content=action- devices 4 Thermography in Diagnosis of Inflammatory Processes in Horses in Response to Various Chemical and Physical Factors: Summary of the Research from September 1978 to December 1982. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by Dr. Ram C. Purohit, Associate Professor, Department of Large Animal Surgery and Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University. The Auburn study is available at the Web address included in footnote 1 or by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.

19 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 21 of 150

A substantial number of persons commented on the changes we proposed to § 11.2.

Commenters mainly asked about what we proposed to prohibit and which breeds of horses would be covered under the proposed regulations.

A considerable number of commenters supported our proposal to prohibit the application of action devices and pads on a horse’s limbs for animal welfare reasons, while others supported the prohibition because such items allowed sored horses to gain a competitive advantage.

Some commenters asked if the prohibition could be extended to horses at their home stables where horses could be sored using action devices and pads.

On the other hand, many commenters opposed the prohibition of action devices and pads for Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, some stating that pads, chains, and other action devices currently allowed under the regulations do not cause soring. As support, a number of these commenters cited the Auburn study referenced above. Many of these commenters suggested that wearing action devices and pads enhances the horse’s performance, with one stating that action devices cause no more harm than a or a . A few commenters stated that through the process of proprioception, chains and other action devices only accentuate the underlying natural action of the horse and cause it to become more aware of its foot action, leading to a longer stride and higher leg lift.

In addition, one commenter representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization stated that APHIS does not have authority under the Act to ban the use of pads and action devices. The commenter argued that pads and action devices can only indirectly result in a horse being sore, as the Auburn study and the Ames study conducted by H.A. Nelson, DVM, and D.L. Osheim,

B.A. (1975) did not indicate that the use of such devices causes a horse to become sore. The

20 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 22 of 150

commenter concluded that APHIS only has authority under the Act to prohibit devices and

practices that directly cause soreness in a horse.

As APHIS discussed in a previous rulemaking, “Elevating a horse’s hooves with high

pads changes the normal angulation of a standing horse’s body and legs, and thus changes

angulation of the normal weight-bearing surfaces of the horse’s legs and the angulation of the

horse’s weight-bearing muscles. The use of high pads also changes the angle at which the

horse’s foot hits the ground, and the angle at which the toe ‘breaks over’ when picking up the

foot to go forward. The Auburn University study and other veterinary research indicates that

altering the angulation of a horse’s feet and legs can cause lameness, soreness, and inflammation,

by transferring concussive impact and weight-bearing pressures to joints and other parts of the

horse not normally subjected to these forces. Additionally, experts in the horse industry have

advised us that elevating the foot can cause an increase in tension in the tendons, which can lead

to inflammation. A high pad can also contribute to stresses caused by extra weight on the

horse’s foot. Additionally, elevating only the front feet, as is typically done, causes an unnatural

angulation of the back and body of the horse, and changes the alignment of the shoulder muscles, the vertebrae, and the pelvis, all of which are then subject to stress, irritation, and inflammation.”

(See 53 FR 14780 (Apr. 26, 1988)).

Moreover, while we acknowledge the findings of the Auburn study with respect to the

use of 2, 4, and 6 ounce chains alone during a two-week observation period, APHIS officials

continue to routinely detect during inspections of horses evidence of soring on those areas of the

pastern where action devices, including chains that weigh 6 ounces or less, are commonly worn.

The evidence of soring includes, among other things, a horse’s repeated and consistent pain

withdrawal responses upon digital palpation, and/or evidence of inflammation (such as

21 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 23 of 150

proliferating granuloma tissue on the posterior aspect of the pasterns) beyond “some loss of hair,” as observed in the Auburn study. In addition, APHIS officials have regularly detected soring in horses wearing action devices in combination with prohibited substances. For example, in the FY 2010-2015 show inspection data we included in the proposed rule, all horses testing positive on inspection for substances prohibited under the existing regulations wore action devices while being shown or exhibited. Moreover, based on our experience in administering and enforcing the Act and regulations, we have determined that the extent and gravity of the effects of using chains weighing 6 ounces or less on the horses is far greater than “some hair loss,” as described in Phase 11 of the Auburn study. To illustrate this point, we have provided in

Exhibit 1 (see footnote 1 for a link to the document) photographic samples of scar rule noncompliances which were identified during routine inspections in 2016 of horses wearing chains weighing 6 ounces or less. These photographs depict pasterns with proliferating granuloma tissue and, in some instances, other evidence of inflammation.

Both the Ames study and the Auburn study, which occurred between 1975 and 1982, assessed the use of thermography to diagnose inflammatory responses in horses when, among other things, wearing action devices, substances, and/or pads. However, neither the Ames study nor the Auburn study considers the evolution of soring or changes in the HPA regulations since the studies occurred. For example, in 2013, a Tennessee Walking Horse trainer pled guilty to conspiring to violate the HPA. In a sentencing memorandum submitted to the court, the government explained: “. . . soring methods are being masked and camouflaged to circumvent the law, leaving fewer outward and obvious physical signs of abuse. These methods include coloring in scars on the horses’ legs using markers and ‘stewarding’ horses to train them not to react in pain to manipulations of their sored feet by show inspectors. As a result, detection of

22 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 24 of 150

abuse and illegal conduct has become even more difficult, but the continual pain these show horses endure has only escalated. After caustic chemicals are applied to horses’ front legs, their legs are wrapped in plastic wrap to ‘cook’ the chemicals into the flesh. In addition to the chemicals used to cook into the horses’ front legs to cause sensitivity to the chains they wear (the method primarily employed by the defendant), pressure shoeing is used to cause pain in the horses’ hoof capsules each time they step on their front feet.”

Even though the existing regulations prohibit the use of chains weighing more than 6 ounces and the use of more than one action device on any one limb of a horse, we also have evidence indicating that trainers use heavy chains, double chains, and other action devices that are prohibited under the existing regulations if they were used at a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. As we noted in the proposed rule, Phase 7 of the Auburn study (“Simultaneous Use of Chemical and Chains for Soring Horses”) determined that the combined use of prohibited substances and chains on the pasterns of horses caused lesions, tissue damage, and visible alterations of behavior consistent with soring. Although this phase used 10 ounce chains, 4 ounces heavier than what is currently allowed, if a horse may be trained sore using 10 ounce chains (or other weight and/or substance combinations), when subsequently shown in 6 ounce chains, the use of a 6 ounce chain may reasonably be expected to cause the horse to experience pain while walking, trotting, or otherwise moving.

Section 1824 of the Act prohibits the participation in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions of any horse which is wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance which the Secretary by regulation prohibits to prevent the soring of horses. In addition, Section 1828 of the Act provides the Secretary with broad authority to “issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out the provisions” under the HPA. Based on

23 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 25 of 150

APHIS’ knowledge and experience administering and enforcing the Act since the completion of

the Ames and Auburn studies, the recommendations of the AVMA and AAEP, and leading

industry standards for equestrian sports,5 APHIS has determined that prohibiting the use of action devices (with the exception of certain protective boots, as discussed below) on Tennessee

Walking Horses and racking horses is necessary to prevent the showing, exhibition, sale, and auction of such horses which are sore. For all other horses, we are retaining the existing prohibitions contained in § 11.2 while we continue to consider what, if any, additional restrictions are necessary to ensure their compliance with the HPA. If, in the future, APHIS determines that additional restrictions should be established, we will initiate a rulemaking and solicit public comment on any proposed amendments.

A few commenters stated that action devices have been recommended by veterinarians to

help strengthen and keep joints limber. Two commenters stated that a recent study found action

devices to help horses during rehabilitative therapy.

While we are aware of a small number of studies evaluating the short-term use of

lightweight tactile stimulation devices attached to the fore or hind pasterns of horses to restore

locomotor function following injury or immobilization, we would not expect a horse to

participate in an HPA-covered event during rehabilitative therapy.

5 For example, the United States Equestrian Federation, which is the governing body for most equestrian sports in the United States, prohibits “soring and/or the use of an action device on any limb of a Tennessee Walking Horse, Racking Horse, or (each a breed not recognized by the Federation) in any class at a Federation Licensed Competition ….” In addition, USEF prohibits the “use of a weighted shoe, pad, wedge, in conjunction with a hoof band or other device or material (commonly referred to as a performance package) placed on, inserted in, or attached to any limb of a Tennessee Walking Horse, a Racking Horse, or Spotted Saddle Horse (each a breed not recognized by the Federation) constructed to artificially alter the gait of such a horse, and which are not protective or therapeutic in nature, in classes at a Federation Licensed Competition….” https://www.usef.org/_IFrames/RuleBook/rules.aspx.

24 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 26 of 150

A few commenters asked that we allow the use of weighted leathers and rubber exercise bands, as they and other owners of trotting horses use such devices to strengthen and condition

their horses.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. Such items have long been

prohibited on the limbs of any horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, as our

experience shows that weighted leathers and other devices have been used in ways that can cause

soring in horses.

Several commenters stated that they use bell boots to protect the feet of their trotting

horses and asked if such devices would be prohibited under the proposed regulations.

We acknowledge that certain boots, such as bell boots, can be used as protective devices

and have reconsidered our decision to prohibit such devices in this final rule that meet the

existing regulatory requirements. Accordingly, we have retained the existing restrictions on the

use of those devices in this final rule.

A few commenters stated that the prohibition of all action devices could paradoxically lead to more soring, not less. One commenter making this point stated that without access to the

legal action devices currently in use, unscrupulous trainers may look for other means to achieve

the desired high-stepping gait by resorting to soring.

We are making no changes in response to the commenter’s statement. Our goal is to

achieve the statutory purpose of eliminating the cruel and inhumane practice of soring horses,

and it has been our experience from administering and enforcing the Act that chains and similar

action devices currently allowed under the regulations are used alone, or in conjunction with

certain prohibited substances, to sore horses. Restricting the use of such devices on horses at any

25 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 27 of 150

horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction will reduce instances of soring in these horses and will help to promote fair competition at HPA-covered events.

Numerous commenters stated that the prohibition on action devices and pads would diminish public interest in shows and result in the cultural and economic decline of the

Tennessee Walking Horse industry. Commenters stated that performance horse classes that allow the use of pads and action devices are part of the culture of horse shows and, without such classes, owners and spectators would lose interest in the shows.

We have no reason to believe that the prohibitions included in this rulemaking will diminish interest by horse owners or spectators in horse shows, regardless of breed. The economic analysis accompanying this rule provides a detailed evaluation of its economic impact on the affected segments of the horse industry.

One commenter representing a farrier organization suggested that the regulations prohibiting action devices were vague. The commenter stated that under the proposal, some horseshoes could be considered action devices, since a shoe influences the horse’s movement.

While we acknowledge that horseshoes can influence a horse’s movement, they do not meet the long-standing definition of action device contained in the regulations.

One commenter stated that we cited research from the Auburn study but did not make the details of this research public. The commenter stated that without access to the details of the research, the public cannot evaluate the basis for changing the rule.

In response to this comment we are making that study available to the public (see footnote 4).

26 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 28 of 150

Prohibition on Pads, Wedges, and Hoof Bands

A considerable number of persons opposed to the rule, as well as many supporting it,

commented specifically on the prohibition on pads, wedges, and hoof bands in proposed

§ 11.2(a)(2).

Commenters who supported the prohibition on pads, wedges, and bands mainly referred

to the stacks (or pads) attached to the hooves of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at

shows and other HPA-covered events and cited concerns about the health and welfare of horses

wearing them. Many of their concerns reflected our statement in the proposed rule that the stacks used can conceal hard objects that produce pain or be designed in such a way that causes a

horse to strike the ground at an abnormal angle to produce pain on stepping, resulting in the

accentuated gait. Some commenters noted specific effects of the stacks on the movement of

performance horses. One stated that the hind end of the horse is forced to compensate and take

on the majority of the horse and rider’s weight, causing the hocks to bow away from the

centerline of the horse in a rolling type of movement, and noted that the hinge joint of the hock

does not naturally move that way. Another commenter stated that stacks and wedges change the

natural angle and balance of the bones and can affect connective tissue in a horse’s leg and hoof.

A few other commenters stated that stacks are biomechanically damaging to the horse’s hoof,

limb, and body. One commenter stated that stacks and weighted shoes held on with overly

tightened metal bands deform the horse’s natural way of going.

Numerous commenters, on the other hand, opposed the prohibition on stacks and wedges.

Some stated that the stacks used in shows with performance classes do not induce soring and

cause no pain or injury to horses wearing them. Referring to our finding that 90 percent of the

instances of noncompliance we documented involved horses wearing pads, one commenter

27 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 29 of 150

stated that this was an inappropriate use of statistics because the number does not account for the

number of times pads were used with no noncompliance found. Several commenters stated that

the accentuated gait achieved by Tennessee Walking Horses is the result of years of selective

breeding, with one commenter stating that horses showing in performance classes “are bred to

carry the pad and shoe.” A few commenters stated that prohibiting stacks will impair the ability

of horses participating in shows to achieve the desired high step. One commenter opposed

prohibiting stacks on the grounds that trainers will seek loopholes for soring horses, such as

using heavy, wide shoes that hide the sole of the foot and make it difficult to detect evidence of

soring.

Substantial numbers of commenters interpreted the rule and its reference to “related

breeds” to apply to all horses, and stated that a proposed prohibition of all pads, wedges, and

bands on all horses is overly broad. Comments opposing these prohibitions were from trainers,

riders, farriers, and owners of Morgans, Saddlebreds, Arabians, and other trotting breeds that

participate in events sanctioned by the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF). Many of

these commenters stated that the purposes for which they use the pads, wedges, and hoof bands

on their horses are distinctly different from the performance packages used on Tennessee

Walking Horses and racking horses to achieve their desired gait. One such commenter stated

that the thickness of the shoes and pads on Saddlebreds ranges from 10 to 20 percent of the

natural hoof length, which is much thinner than allowed under the current USDA rules for

Tennessee Walking Horses. Another commenter stated that, under the wording of the Act, the

ban on pads, wedges, and hoof bands in the proposed rule is not within APHIS’ authority to ban

when they are used in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse. Many commenters cited reasons for which the use of pads and wedges are protective, corrective, and therapeutic for

28 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 30 of 150

trotting horses, including protecting thin hooves and providing extra traction when riding on rocky surfaces or in snow, treating hoof cracks and dissymmetry, laminitis, navicular syndrome, pedal osteitis, and other conditions, and reducing pressure on the digital tendon. One commenter stated that horses ridden by mounted police during parades often require pads to absorb the shock of pavement and prevent lameness. Many commenters also noted that trotting horses can have uneven feet and that a custom-made pad or wedge is sometimes necessary to prevent balance problems. One commenter stated that pads allow for the retention of hoof packing materials such as turpentine that enhance the health of the horse’s feet. A veterinarian writing on behalf of the USEF stated that horses governed under the federation use only shoes or shoes with a single pad, and that combinations of pads are used therapeutically only in severe injuries that would preclude showing. The commenter added that stacked pads are used for gait enhancement in show horses and are not therapeutic. A commenter stated that Missouri Fox Trotting horses do not show with the performance package used by some divisions of the Tennessee Walking

Horse but do sometimes use pads for therapeutic purposes.

One commenter asked us to allow no exception for therapeutic pads for walking horse breeds, stating that there is no evidence of non-soring uses of pads that could justify an exception for walking horses.

Some commenters opposing the prohibition on pads suggested that we allow pads but develop weight and thickness standards for determining what would be acceptable. One commenter, for example, asked that we allow only two pads with a combined height of not more than 1 inch as a compromise measure.

After a careful consideration of the comments and available scientific and evidentiary data, we are codifying the proposed prohibition on pads and wedges as they pertain to Tennessee

29 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 31 of 150

Walking Horses and racking horses and allowing an exception for pads and wedges that are used for therapeutic purposes. In addition, we are retaining the existing provisions on the use of pads and wedges for all horses in this final rule. Finally, we are retaining the existing restrictions on the use of hoof bands for all horses, including Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horses, because such bands are used not only to secure pads and wedges, but also certain horse shoes.

As mentioned in the proposed rule, our experience in administering and enforcing the

HPA indicates that soring has continued to occur through the use of hoof pads. Approximately

90 percent of the alleged violations documented at HPA-covered events from FY 2010 through

2015 involved horses wearing pads. In addition, during that same time period, approximately

369 shoeing noncompliances were documented at those events. Shoeing noncompliances include incidences where there is evidence of pressure shoeing and noncompliant heel-toe ratios, pads, wedges, and hoof bands, among other things. To illustrate this point, we have provided in

Exhibit 1 (see footnote 1 for a link to the document) radiographic images that depict three shoeing noncompliances involving the insertion of metal plates in the pad. These noncompliances were all identified within two days of each other in 2013.

These inspection findings are significant, given the difficulties in detecting pressure shoeing and other soring methods that are difficult to detect upon inspection. For example, in

2011, a Tennessee Walking Horse trainer was sentenced for felony violations of the HPA and pled guilty to conspiring to violate the HPA and falsifying related forms, as well as conspiring to commit witness tampering. In connection with his plea agreement and subsequent sentencing, the trainer provided factual information regarding the soring methods he and others used while training horses, including some methods that are difficult to detect upon inspection. Among other things, the trainer and others did the following: Screwed large bolts against the sole area of

30 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 32 of 150

horses' front hooves, causing intense pressure to be applied to the area and resulting in

significant pain for the horse, for the purpose of creating a more animated gait in the horse so it

would perform better at horse shows; forced horses to stand with their front hooves placed on top

of large wooden blocks constructed of 2” x 6” lumber with a central upward projection to press

into the horses’ sole area, causing significant pressure and pain; applied chemical irritants, such

as mustard oil, on various horses’ pasterns to burn the skin and make the horse more sensitive to

weighted chains placed around this area when the horses were ridden; and used hoof packing

material (known as “blue putty”) between the hoof and the pad that hardens and creates pressure

against the sole of the horse’s hoof and removed the hoof packing prior to presenting the horse

for inspection (making the HPA noncompliance difficult to detect), while allowing the sole of

the horse’s hoof to remain sore. In addition to finding that raising a horse’s heels through the use

of pads and wedges alone results in signs of inflammation, the Auburn study also found the

ability to detect pressure soring (i.e., the illegal application and/or use of bolts, screws, blocks, hoof packing material, and other methods of pressure) through visual and physical inspection of the soles of horses’ hooves is limited because pads obscure the solar surface of the foot.

Moreover, because evidence of pressure soring can be removed prior to inspection, the evidence

of soring would not appear on radiographs.

As an alternative to prohibiting the use of pads and wedges on Tennessee Walking

Horses and racking horses at HPA-covered events, we considered increasing the frequency with which we remove horse shoes and pads while inspecting horses and increasing the use of radiographs to inspect the extremities of horses with pads. However, as mentioned above,

devices that are used to pressure shoe horses are often removed before the horse is presented for

inspection at a HPA-covered event. In addition, because shoeing a Tennessee Walking Horse

31 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 33 of 150

can be a complicated process that can take considerable time and care to do properly,6 and may

delay or interrupt individual classes or performances at horse shows or exhibitions, we do not

believe requesting the removal of pads or wedges at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions

would be feasible or advisable to do on a widespread basis, and would run counter to the

Secretary’s mandate in Section 1823 of the Act to commence and complete inspections with

reasonable promptness.

As a second alternative to prohibiting the use of pads and wedges on Tennessee Walking

Horses and racking horses at HPA-covered events, we considered enhanced enforcement of the

Act. However, despite the modest size of the APHIS Horse Protection Program and the industry

itself, noncompliance under the existing regulatory framework is so pervasive that it requires an

inordinate use of USDA resources. The primary mechanism for enforcement under the HPA is

formal adjudicatory actions, which, by their nature, may be protracted and take several years

before reaching a final decision. When coupled with the volume of noncompliance under

review, alleged violators know that they are unlikely to face sanctions for many years. Because

the immediate effect of our enforcement is limited, alleged violators are not deterred from

continuing to engage in activity that is noncompliant with the HPA.

Section 1824 of the Act prohibits the participation in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and

auctions of any horse which is wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or

substance which the Secretary by regulation prohibits to prevent the soring of horses. Based on

APHIS’ experience administering and enforcing the Act, the recommendations of the AVMA and AAEP, and leading industry standards for equestrian sports, including noncompliances

6 https://www.americanfarriers.com/articles/994-shoeing-the-high-stepping-tennessee-walking- horse.

32 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 34 of 150

identified during inspections and the use of pads and wedges as masking devices to conceal

soring, APHIS has determined that prohibiting the use of pads and wedges on Tennessee

Walking Horses and racking horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions is necessary

to prevent the soring of horses, with the exception of horses that require pads or wedges for the

therapeutic treatment of a disease or injury. To qualify for this exemption to the prohibition, the

use of the pad or wedge on a Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse receiving therapeutic

treatment must be under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine, and

must:

• Be necessary for the treatment of a disease or injury that has not responded to other

appropriate treatments in accordance with established veterinary medical practice and

procedures,

• Be prescribed for the treatment of the disease or injury (such as the height, weight, and

material of a therapeutic pad), and

• Be removed after the period required to complete the treatment.

Any APHIS representative or Horse Protection Inspector may require the removal of any

pads or wedges used for therapeutic purposes to inspect a horse for compliance with the Act and

the regulations.

One commenter asked that we prohibit the use of acrylic “false” soles that resemble the hoof and that hide evidence of soring under the hoof.

In response to this comment, we note that acrylic or other hardening substances used under the hoof to cause or hide evidence of soring are prohibited.

Some of the same commenters calling for allowing pads for trotting breeds stated that hoof bands should be allowed for horses who have naturally thin or weak hoof walls which

33 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 35 of 150

prevent them from supporting shoes. A commenter acknowledged that hoof bands can be tightened for the purposes of soring but asked that we not prohibit them when they are beneficial to the horse. One commenter stated that hoof bands are a safety measure to hold the shoe in place; otherwise the horse would be more susceptible to breaking a toe or the entire foot.

Another commenter stated that hoof bands help transfer the weight of the shoe to the whole hoof, not just the wall, thereby protecting the hoof in trotting breeds.

We acknowledge these commenters’ concerns and, as mentioned above, are retaining the existing restrictions on the use of hoof bands for all horses in this final rule.

One commenter, a farrier, recommended that pads, shoe weight, and similar concerns be regulated by the needs of particular breed and activity organizations, not by the Federal government.

Congress enacted the HPA to end the cruel and inhumane practice of soring horses. The practice of soring is intended to improve the performance of a horse at horse shows and exhibitions by altering its gait through the use of a device, substance, or other physical practice that causes the horse to suffer, or reasonably be expected to suffer, pain, inflammation, or lameness while walking, trotting, or moving. This practice can produce a high-stepping gait that has been prized in certain competitions involving Tennessee Walking Horses and other breeds.

This practice is not only cruel and inhumane, but also results in unfair competition that damages the integrity of the breed. To combat the practice of soring, the HPA not only prohibits the showing, exhibition, sale, and auction of sore horses, but also prohibits the participation in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions of any horse which is wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance which the Secretary by regulation prohibits to prevent the

34 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 36 of 150

soring of horses, as we are doing here in this final rule with respect to certain pads and wedges.

Accordingly, we make no changes based on this comment.

One commenter questioned our statement on the APHIS Web site that the changes in the proposed rule would align the HPA regulations with existing equestrian standards set forth by the

USEF. The commenter noted that the USEF allows for certain bell boots and pads in competition and asked us to remove the statement from the APHIS Web site.

The prohibitions on certain devices discussed in this final rule with respect to Tennessee

Walking Horses and racking horses are consistent with the standards set forth by the USEF in many respects. For example, the USEF prohibits the use of a pad or wedge attached to any limb of a Tennessee Walking Horse or a racking horse constructed to artificially alter the gait of such a horse, and which are not protective or therapeutic in nature, in classes at a USEF-licensed competition.

“Related Breeds”

Numerous commenters supporting and opposing the rule stated their concerns about our use of the wording “related breeds” in proposed § 11.2(a) and elsewhere when referring to breeds other than Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring.

One commenter representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization stated that the prohibitions in the proposed regulations are arbitrary and capricious, as they single out subject breeds in their applicability without providing adequate explanation for doing so. The commenter cited examples of soring that occur in other horse breeds, including pressure shoeing, inserting caustic chemicals into the rectum of the horse, and striking or placing irritants on the legs of jumper horses.

35 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 37 of 150

A very large number of commenters noted that the wording “related breeds” could be construed to include trotting breeds, such as Saddlebreds, Morgans, and Arabians, and emphasized that the gait of their horses is distinctly different from those of other breeds for which soring has been a concern. Several such commenters noted that Tennessee Walking

Horses, unlike trotting horses, have what is called a four-beat gait or walk, while the trot is a two-beat diagonal gait. The commenters added that any unsoundness, or soreness, produces an uneven and unattractive way of going at the trot that would be severely penalized in the show ring and convey no competitive advantage. Other commenters similarly noted that a sore trotting horse would not trot well, so there is no motive for soring such a horse. A commenter cited a

2006 APHIS presentation illustrating that trotting horses participate in rigorous action competitions but have clean pasterns with no evidence of soring. 7 One commenter representing a horsemen’s association referred to the phrases “related breeds” and “related breeds of horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring” as undefined terms that are “impermissibly vague,” and questioned what these related breed qualifications would be, as well as what types of accentuated gaits would raise concerns about soring and what process or persons would make such a determination. The same commenter also stated that inspecting horses at events for which there is no history of soring would be a waste of APHIS’ resources.

Several commenters asked APHIS to replace “related breeds” with “related non-trotting breeds.”

Additionally, one commenter stated that the breed registry for the Tennessee Walking

Horse includes breeds not typically associated with the accentuated gait of the Tennessee

Walking Horse, including Standardbred, Thoroughbred, Morgan, and American Saddlebred

7 Horse Protection Program Listening Session, Shelbyville, TN, February 8, 2006: USDA/APHIS/Animal Care.

36 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 38 of 150

stock. The commenter also stated that the racking registry also includes some of

these breeds, as well as others that share the distinctive gait of the racking horse. These

commenters were concerned that, based on these registries, APHIS could enforce the regulations

on breeds having no history or incentive to participate in the practice of soring. On the other

hand, a commenter that supported the inclusion of all horse breeds under the rule stated that it is

an important deterrent to soring.

In addition, several commenters opposed to the rule interpreted “related breeds” to mean

that the rule’s provisions should apply to all breeds of horses that are shown or exhibited, with

many adding that APHIS is unfairly targeting Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.

One such commenter stated that trainers of American Saddlebred horses and Morgans place

mechanical “shackles” on their horses for training purposes, and another stated that some

Morgan owners and trainers are using action devices on their horses. Another commenter asked

why APHIS has not shut down bull riding or rodeos. One commenter asked whether APHIS

would be conducting inspections at dressage events.

APHIS is aware of substantive reports and instances of soring at events involving breeds

of horses other than Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. For example, APHIS has

found evidence of soring during inspections conducted at Spotted Saddle Horse and Missouri

Fox Trotter events and is aware of trainers who have been convicted of violating the HPA that

trained Spotted Saddle Horses and Tennessee Walking Horses. In addition, APHIS is aware of

concerns and incidents of show jumpers bearing signs of abuse on their legs.8 However, these reports and incidences are not as widespread as the reports and incidents of soring in Tennessee

8 See, for example, https://www.americanfarriers.com/articles/875-soring-still-an-international- concern-with-show-jumpers, and http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/usef-suspends-devin- ryan-after-hampton-classic-horse-welfare-concerns.

37 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 39 of 150

Walking Horses and racking horses, and we acknowledge the confusion expressed by commenters over the use of the term “related breeds” in the proposed rule. In this final rule, we are removing the term “related breeds” from regulations and are adopting proposed inspection, recordkeeping, and other requirements for Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.

However, as noted elsewhere, we are retaining the existing prohibitions on the use of devices, equipment, or practices for all horses (while imposing addition restrictions on Tennessee

Walking Horses and racking horses) and will continue to conduct unannounced inspections at any and all horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, on a risk-basis. In addition, we are continuing to consider what, if any, additional restrictions are necessary for horses other than

Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. If, in the future, APHIS determines that additional restrictions should be established, we will initiate a rulemaking and solicit public comment on any proposed amendments.

Under the HPA, the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is responsible for disqualifying and prohibiting sore horses from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned, no matter the breed of horse. Given management’s responsibilities, we encourage management at all HPA-covered events, including Spotted Saddle Horses and Missouri Fox

Trotter events, to be vigilant about soring, report any instances to us as required under the regulations, and consider retaining a HPI or conducting their own inspections to assess compliance.

One commenter opposed to the term “related breeds” asked why we included it in the proposed rule even though the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act (or PAST Act) legislation drafted by Congress does not contain it.

38 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 40 of 150

In response to this comment, we note that the process to amend agency regulations is separate from the process followed by Congress to amend statutes.

Finally, one commenter asked us to include mules in the regulations and indicated that

some mules are the offspring of horse breeds for which soring is a concern.

We proposed no changes to the definition of horse in this rulemaking. Therefore, we are

making no changes in response to this commenter’s recommendation.

Many commenters asked us to define our use of the terms “accentuated” and “animated”

when describing gaits, considering it to be overly broad and noting that trotting, dressage, and

other movement in breeds not typically associated with soring could be described in similar

terms. One commenter asked if horses in jumping events are considered to have an accentuated

gait. Another commenter noted that gaited breeds sometimes perform with a non-accentuated

gait and expressed concern that the proposed regulations would not be applied to such horses.

The commenters correctly point out that many horses, including trotting horses, have

animated gaits. We use the terms “animated”, “accentuated,” and “exaggerated” to describe the

high stepping, “animated” gait.

Notice to Clarify Proposed Regulations on Horseshoes

In the proposed rule, we proposed to replace the term “yearling horses” in § 11.2(b)(9)

with “horses up to 2 years old” and moved the term to proposed paragraph (a)(3). In that

paragraph, we included a provision to prohibit the use of any weight on horses up to 2 years old,

except a keg or similar conventional , as well as the use of a horseshoe on horses up to

2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces.

Several commenters asked that horseshoes be regulated because heavy, wide shoes can

impede inspection techniques, obscuring the sole and making it hard to use a hooftester. Many

39 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 41 of 150

commenters suggested that the regulations should include a limit on the weight and width of shoes allowed to be used on all breeds and prohibit any shoe which covers the sole of the hoof for inspection. Another commenter stated that some trainers shoe horses with shoes of uneven weights to create more action in the horse’s gait.

In a Federal Register notice published on September 22, 2016 (FR 65307, Docket No.

APHIS-2011-0009) we addressed the proposed rule to clarify commenter concerns about certain horseshoes and soring. In order to make proposed § 11.2(a)(3) consistent with other prohibitions on weights and heavy shoes, we stated we were considering changing the paragraph to read,

“The use of any weight on horses, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe is prohibited.”

The regulations continue to allow for corrective devices such as Memphis bars that do not form a single fulcrum point under the hoof.

A number of commenters who own or train trotting breeds opposed the clarification.9

One commenter stated that while a certain amount of excessive shoe weight would eventually cause a horse to be lame, that amount would be much heavier than 16 ounces and vary greatly according to the size and strength of the horse. A farrier commented that shoeing techniques based on good science can correct for natural imbalances and deformities in the hoof, and that one kind of shoe is not practical. Other commenters stated that weighted shoes are used on trotting horses to accentuate movement and balance motion. A commenter suggested that instead of imposing a weight limit on shoes, APHIS should require that “the sole of the hoof and the entire frog must be visible” to ensure that no signs of soring are concealed during inspection.

One commenter opposed to the prohibition of all but keg and conventional horseshoes stated

9 Comments on legal issues relating to the notice are addressed below in the Constitutional and Legal Issues section of this document.

40 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 42 of 150

that, in trotting breeds, shoes are often handmade to fit show horses who have uneven hooves. A commenter representing a flat shod organization stated that prohibiting all but “unweighted” keg shoes is unfounded by either science-based testing or merit and that there do not appear to be any relative studies of weighted versus non-weighted shoes. One commenter stated that with the prohibition on hoof bands on walking horses it would be impossible to use a shoe heavier than a horse could reasonably be expected to carry. Another commenter stated that the notice does not clarify the provision but significantly changes the substance of it by banning all but keg or conventional horseshoes, which will result in the elimination of a substantial number of classes in many Tennessee Walking Horse shows, including several flat-shod classes. The commenter added that APHIS did not explain whether and how the change would help to eliminate soring.

A commenter representing a national walking horse organization stated that prohibiting weighted shoes would eliminate several walking horse divisions and cut their membership by half.

Finally, one commenter asked us to explain what problem the clarification is attempting to address.

We have reconsidered the clarification we made to the provision in § 11.2(a)(3) in the proposed rule and are adopting the provision as originally proposed in § 11.2(b)(4) of this final rule. However, we will continue to monitor the use of horseshoes and weights and, if necessary, will propose additional restrictions in a future rulemaking.

Several commenters asked us to define a “conventional horseshoe.”

Undefined words of art contained in the regulations carry the meaning attributed to them by trade usage or general usage as reflected by definition in a standard dictionary, such as

“Webster's.”

41 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 43 of 150

A commenter asked that we prohibit horseshoes made of anything other than rubber, plastic, aluminum, or steel.

We consider the term “conventional horseshoe” to adequately address the commenter’s concern.

We included in proposed § 11.2(a)(4) a provision to prohibit all artificial toe extensions and to remove the provisions concerning artificial toe length measurements.

Many commenters agreed with the prohibition on artificial toe extensions. One commenter stated that the unnatural toe length caused by extensions places tremendous pressure on a horse’s coffin bone, legs, and shoulders.

On the other hand, some commenters opposing the prohibition on toe extensions cited as the reason for their opposition the health and safety of the horse on grounds that they are used for therapeutic or corrective purposes. One commenter, a farrier, stated that under the proposed regulations, a person who repairs a cracked or damaged hoof could no longer do so with any methods currently available. A few commenters stated that adding acrylic to one foot should be allowed to repair a broken toe. Other commenters noted that many owners of breeds of horses not typically associated with soring, such as American Saddlebreds, Morgans, and Hackney ponies will lengthen the hoof to correct uneven feet or unpredictable hoof growth. Another commenter opposed to the prohibition suggested establishing a maximum toe length of 6.5 inches, including natural toe and pads and a minimum heel height of 3.5 inches, including wedges. The commenter stated that these measurements would continue to allow farriers to determine the correct hoof angle for each horse while maintaining horse tendon health. Another commenter suggested limiting the toe length of Tennessee Walking Horses to 6 inches and

42 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 44 of 150

reduce it to 5 inches over time. A commenter representing a national walking horse organization

asked that we prohibit artificial extension of the toe length on more than one foot.

We acknowledge commenters’ remarks that toe length may be manipulated to correct and

repair hoof damage and alignment. At this time, we are continuing to consider whether the

existing restrictions on artificial extensions of toe length are sufficient to prevent soring in

horses. We are aware of a study that recommended further investigation on acute hoof

angulation because researchers have found that long toes act as a long leverage point with an

acute angulation and the effort required to rotate the hoof around the long fulcrum has been

associated with increased stress on the deep digital flexor tendon, greater compressive force on

the navicular bone, and tensile stress on ligaments.10 We welcome additional data, information,

and scientific studies on artificial extension of toe length and may initiate a future rulemaking if

the existing regulations on this matter are inadequate to prevent soring of horses.

One commenter questioned our use of the term "artificial" in describing toe lengthening

by stating that there is no definition of "natural" toe length that is appropriate to all horses.

Consistent with general usage, we consider artificial toe length to be achieved through the

use of acrylics, pads, or other applications. We consider natural toe length as the length of the horse’s toe absent any applications.

We proposed to add a new paragraph § 11.2(a)(5) that includes provisions for hoof

packing. Acceptable hoof packing will continue to include pine tar, oakum, live rubber, sponge

rubber, silicone, commercial hoof packing, or other material that does not create any pain on the

10 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1990.tb04742.x/asset/j.2042- 3306.1990.tb04742.x.pdf?v=1&t=iw6f642c&s=3cc4680b1addf900c406c539c3ed4c8d65bc992c.

43 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 45 of 150

frog, sole, or any areas underneath the hoof. We also proposed to prohibit acrylic and other hardening substances as hoof packing.

One commenter stated that the phrase “other hardening substances” is vague and should be deleted or clarified.

We are making no changes in response to the comment, as it is not possible to create an exhaustive list of substances that can or cannot be used for hoof packing.

Some commenters stated that hoof packing is beneficial for redistributing the load on a horse’s foot to relieve pain and lameness. An equine veterinarian specializing in podiatry noted that appropriate hoof packing is a tool to keep or achieve soundness in show horses. Another commenter noted that on trotting horses, farriers often pack the space between the pad and the hoof to prevent debris from entering. Other commenters stated that they pack their horses’ hooves as a means of applying medication to the bottom of the foot but noted that a thin pad attached to the hoof is necessary to keep the medicated packing material in the hoof. They requested that we allow the use of pads for this purpose.

Another commenter asked that we prohibit hoof packing, as there is no need for it without pads and that trainers may use other means of inserting items in the hoof to cause soring.

We agree with the comments noting that appropriate hoof packing can be used and are adopting the regulations as proposed.

Consistent with the existing regulations, we proposed in § 11.2(a)(6) to continue to prohibit single or double rocker-bars on the bottom surface of horseshoes which extend more than 1.5 inches back from the point of the toe, or any device which would cause, or could reasonably be expected to cause, an unsteadiness of stance in the horse with resulting muscle and tendon strain due to the horse’s weight and balance being focused upon a small fulcrum point.

44 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 46 of 150

We also retained the use of Memphis bars and other corrective devices for the purpose of correcting a lameness or pathological condition of the foot as long as such bars do not act as a single fulcrum point so as to affect the balance of the horse. We received no comments on this provision and are making no changes to it in this final rule.

We proposed in § 11.2(a)(7) a prohibition on any manner of shoeing or trimming a horse’s hoof that will cause suffering, pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when the animal is walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, as well as prohibitions on paring out the frog and bruising of the hoof. We also proposed to add the provision that horses showing any other indications of pressure shoeing are considered sore and subject to all the prohibitions in the Act.

One commenter stated that the prohibition on paring out of the frog is vague, and noted that it is sometimes necessary to trim excess, insensitive tissue that could trap bacteria and cause thrush.

To address this commenter’s concern, we have revised this provision to prohibit paring out of the frog in a manner that will cause such horse to suffer, or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to suffer pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving.

Another commenter stated that the term “bruising of the hoof” is vague and asked that it be clarified to indicate that it is prohibited when performed by a person.

We are making no changes in response to the comment. It is clear within the context of the prohibitions in § 11.2 that we mean bruising that is performed by a person and thereby prohibited.

Another commenter asked that we revise the prohibition to add “excessive paring of the frog and/or sole” to proposed paragraph (b)(7).

45 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 47 of 150

We agree with this suggestion and believe it is in line with the intent of this provision to prevent the soring of horses. We have made conforming changes accordingly in § 11.2(b)(13) of the final rule.

We added to proposed § 11.2(a)(8) the provision that lead or other weights attached to the outside of the hoof wall or the outside surface of the horseshoe are prohibited. We also proposed to provide that hollow shoes or artificial extensions filled with mercury or similar substances are prohibited.

We also proposed to redesignate paragraph (c), which pertains to lubricants, as paragraph

(b) and revise it to prohibit all substances, including lubricants, on the limbs of any Tennessee

Walking Horse, racking horse, or related breed while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. Concurrently, we also proposed and solicited comment on the application of this prohibition “to any and all horses present on the grounds of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.” Our proposed rule went on to explain that, “We are proposing these changes because, as we explain above, our experience in administering and enforcing the Act has shown that a wide range of foreign substances have been applied to the legs and pasterns of gaited horses to induce soreness. Numbing substances are also applied to a sore horse to temporarily mask the pain of being palpated during inspection.”

A substantial number of commenters opposed to this prohibition stated that it was overly broad. Several noted that many substances applied to the limbs of horses, such as fly spray, ointments, and liniments, are beneficial or therapeutic. One such commenter noted that the Act defines sore to specifically exempt the application of substances in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse and that the proposed rule’s failure to exempt the use of

46 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 48 of 150

substances for these purposes is in direct conflict with the Act. One commenter was concerned

that wet clay poultices for drawing out inflammation in the limbs could no longer be used.

Another commenter stated that the use of fly sprays reduces the risk of horses being infected

with mosquito and fly-borne diseases, including encephalitis. A few commenters stated that many substances occur naturally in the environment, and that these can unintentionally make

their way onto the horse. Other commenters noted the possibility that trainers or other persons

could inadvertently transfer commonly used substances such as soap, hand lotion, and water

from their hands to the horse. Some commenters opposed our inclusion of language indicating

“any horse on the grounds of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction,” one noting that dirt and dust

can collect on the limbs of a horse while simply on the grounds at such events.

One commenter stated that anything on a horse’s limbs can be considered a prohibited

substance under the proposed prohibition and asked why APHIS refuses to create a baseline for

determining prohibited substances. Another asked that we post a list of proposed substances to

the APHIS Web site.

At the onset, we wish to highlight that the number of substances that can potentially be

used to cause or mask soring, is prohibitively large. The creation of a baseline or exhaustive list

considering all possible prohibited substances would be impractical. However, we note that

APHIS does maintain a list of definitions of prohibited substances commonly found on horses

at HPA-covered events11 and, as a matter of policy, APHIS focuses its limited investigative and enforcement resources on prohibited substances that are considered irritants or numbing and masking agents.

11 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/Foreign_Substance_ Definitions.pdf.

47 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 49 of 150

Regarding the comments received in opposition to the prohibition of substances on the grounds of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, we note that the current regulations have long prohibited the use of all substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee

Walking horse or racking horse while being show, exhibited, offered for sale, sold, or auctioned. Aside from removing the allowance for lubricants provided by management to reduce friction caused by action devices on the limbs of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, which is no longer necessary in light of the prohibitions on such devices, and the addition of the phrase “otherwise on the grounds,” the prohibition on substances is relatively unchanged. Yet, despite these long standing prohibitions on substances, we continue to detect a high incidence of prohibited substances, principally irritants and numbing and masking agents, on the pasterns of horses at HPA-covered events. As noted above, we published a table in the proposed rule describing HPA-covered event inspection data from FY 2010-2015, including results from testing for prohibited substances, on horse breeds at HPA-covered events at which horse industry DQPs conducted inspections. In FY 2015, for example, 500 horses were positive out of 768 tested, and over the 5 year period the average rate of positives was 69 percent.

Because of this high rate of detection of substances on the extremities of horses at HPA-covered events, the Department will prohibit all substances, including lubricants previously permitted when provided by management, on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking or racking horse while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

A few commenters asked that we also prohibit chemicals such as ginger paste applied to the rectum to raise a horse’s tail. One commenter representing a show organization suggested that this activity falls under the purview of the Act.

48 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 50 of 150

With respect to chemicals used to raise a horse’s tail, this activity would be covered by the HPA if it involves the soring of horses. We welcome additional data and information concerning such practices to ensure that we are fully understanding the facts and circumstances, and the applicability of the Act to such practices.

In proposed § 11.2(c), we provided specific requirements for rest periods during horse

show and horse exhibition workouts or performances for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses,

racking horses, and related breeds and working exhibitions for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking

Horses, racking horses, and related breeds at horse sales or horse auctions.

In conformance with the changes discussed above, we are retaining the existing scope of

this provision and are removing the reference to “related breeds.” We are applying the provision

to Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses only.

Scar Rule (§ 11.3) We proposed no substantive changes to the scar rule provisions in § 11.3 of the

regulations. However, we received a substantial number of comments from persons regarding

these provisions and how they are applied.

Several commenters raised questions about the scar rule, characterizing its application as

overly subjective during the process of equine inspections. One such commenter stated that the

existing guidelines for inspections related to the scar rule have changed frequently over the years

and noted that APHIS has discontinued providing written guidelines on what constitutes a scar in

connection with this rule. The commenter also characterized the application of the scar rule as

arbitrary, imprecise, and inconsistent from show to show. One commenter stated that USDA

continues to confuse and conflate the concepts of callus tissue, scars, and soring. A commenter

representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization stated that current inspectors misapply

provisions of the scar rule and do not account for alternative explanations that may account for

49 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 51 of 150

scar-like conditions on the pasterns. Another commenter stated that testing on 94 horses rejected

for failure to comply with the scar rule at the 2015 Tennessee Walking Horse National

Celebration were found to have no scarring in the tissue identified by the inspector as being

scarred. A commenter supporting the rule stated that inspecting a horse for scars only subjects

horses to further torture, as owners will have scars burned from horses to avoid detection.

In addition, a few commenters stated that the scar rule should also be applied to the hind

limbs of the horse. Several other commenters asked that the same criteria in paragraph (a)

pertaining to the anterior surfaces of the pasterns also be applied to the posterior of each pastern

in paragraph (b), and one asked that we require that the entire surface of the pastern be free of

granulomas and inflammation. Another asked that we include “anterior/medial” among the parts

of the pastern that must be free of granulomas and inflammation. Finally, one commenter stated

that despite there being no “one foot” scar rule in the Act, USDA has disqualified horses for

scars on one foot.

These comments are outside the scope of this rulemaking because we did not propose any

changes to the provisions they address. Therefore, we are making no changes based on these

comments. However, we note that APHIS representatives assess compliance with regulations

pertaining to the scar rule through the use of palpation and other methods of inspection, as defined in the regulations. Aside from the clarifying changes made to the definition of

inspection in this final rule, that definition has been in place for more than 30 years. Moreover,

the Secretary has determined that digital palpation is a highly reliable method for determining

whether a horse is sore. The Secretary’s reliance on palpation to determine whether a horse is

sore is based on upon the experience of a large number of veterinarians, many of whom had 10

to 20 years of experience in examining many thousands of horses as part of their efforts to

50 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 52 of 150

enforce the HPA. APHIS interprets and applies the scar rule criteria in accordance with the

regulations and inspects for compliance using these effective and reliable means to determine

whether a horse is sore.

One commenter representing a Tennessee Walking Horse organization suggested that

APHIS allow horses that do not meet the scar rule requirements to participate in natural gait

events where soring conveys no advantage. The commenter explained that exempting them from

the scar rule, solely for participation in other disciplines where soring, or training using soring

practices is irrelevant to performance, could encourage the rehabilitation and re-employment of

previously sored horses.

We are making no changes based on this comment. The scar rule is intended to detect

horses that are sore at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. Horses that do not meet the scar rule criteria in § 11.3 are considered to be sore and their participation in such events

constitutes a violation of the Act.

A few commenters stated that horses may acquire abrasions and scars on their limbs for

various reasons having no connection to soring.

In response to these comments, we note that the scar rule does not apply to horses that

bear a scar from an accidental injury.

Other commenters requested that language in the scar rule stating its application to all

horses born on or after October 1, 1975, be removed due to its lack of modern applicability. As

two commenters noted, no horses born prior to this date would be showing in the present day.

While we agree with the commenters that no such horses are being shown in the present

day, we are retaining this provision in order to emphasize that we have proposed no changes to

the scar rule and are making no changes to it.

51 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 53 of 150

Another commenter asked that we include a requirement that horses born on or after the effective date of the rule must have the entire surface of the pastern, including the sulcus or

“pocket,” be free of bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and other bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of soring.

We are making no changes to the scar rule; accordingly, we are making no changes in

response to the comment.

Inspection and Detention of Horses: Responsible Parties (Proposed § 11.5, Final § 11.5).

We proposed in § 11.5(c) to state that no objects or tack other than a halter and lead rope

are to be on the horse during inspection.

One commenter stated that this requirement creates additional difficulties for exhibitors

and management because tack would need to be carried to the inspection area and placed on the

horse. A few commenters stated that this requirement could pose a danger to people in the

inspection area. One such commenter stated that attempting to bridle a horse in the warm up

area prior to showing could cause injuries to horses and humans, as not all horses are easy to

bridle. Other commenters supported this point, stating that give the custodian a better

ability to control the horse. One commenter recounted incidents in which unruly horses became

agitated during inspection and stated that any liability for injury would have to be assumed by

USDA as the result of placing people in harm’s way.

Except in terms of organization, we are adopting the regulations as proposed. As noted

in the proposed rule, we have found that objects, other than a halter and lead rope, have been

used to train or “steward” horses that are sore to not respond to digital palpation during HPA

compliance inspections, thus impeding the detection and diagnosis of soring. For example,

APHIS officials have observed instances in which an object was inserted under the saddle to

52 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 54 of 150

create pain as a means of stewarding the horse through the inspection process. In addition, in

2011, an owner and operator of a stable that trained Tennessee Walking Horses was sentenced for a HPA criminal conviction when a horse trained at the stable was discovered wearing a nerve cord – in this case, a plastic zip tie that distractingly stimulated the horse’s gums – in its mouth and found bilaterally during inspection. In response to commenters’ concerns about safety in the inspection area, it is the responsibility of management to provide an adequate inspection space.

Horses that are preparing for show competition can be reasonably expected to be well-trained and capable of standing still for the duration of the inspection; in the uncommon event of an unruly horse in the inspection area, the person in custody will remain in close proximity to ensure a quick response.

Training and Licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs) (Proposed § 11.6, Final § 11.14) We proposed to consolidate horse inspection training and licensing requirements in a revised § 11.6, titled “Training and Licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs).” As HIOs will no longer be responsible for training and licensing inspectors and enforcing penalties, we proposed also to remove all regulatory burdens and requirements assigned to them in part 11. As noted above, we proposed that APHIS assume all HPI licensing and training responsibilities.

We received comments requesting that the Agency consider, in the alternative, retaining the existing requirements for the training and licensing of DQPs but limiting the number of HIOs with certified DQP programs to one HIO only.

The 2010 USDA OIG audit, discussed in the proposed rule, uncovered conflicts of interest among DQPs, the HIOs that maintain training and licensing programs, and management that affiliate with the HIOs. The report recommended that APHIS undertake training and licensing of horse inspectors to ensure that inspection techniques are correctly and consistently applied by inspectors working independently of the horse industry.

53 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 55 of 150

As we noted in the proposed rule, inspection data compiled by APHIS suggests that inadequate inspections at events featuring Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses have resulted in underreporting of sore horses when APHIS inspectors are not in attendance. This is consistent with the results of the 2010 OIG audit, which found that while APHIS attended only a fraction of the events at which DQPs were retained to inspect horses, APHIS consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance based on VMO inspection findings.

The OIG’s recommendation is also consistent with findings of USDA’s Office of the

Judicial Officer, which issues final decision on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture for purposes of judicial review. The Secretary of Agriculture, through the Judicial Officer, has routinely found that DQP inspections of horses are less probative than inspections conducted by

USDA Veterinary Medical Officers. In making such findings, the Secretary has noted that DQP often conduct “short and cursory” inspections given the volume of horses they must inspect prior to HPA-covered events, that DQPs are not veterinarians and do not maintain the same qualifications, and DQPs must engage with members of the industry on a daily basis, which may make them reluctant to notify management that a horse is sore.

We proposed to add an introductory paragraph to revised § 11.6 stating that APHIS will train and license HPIs and reiterating the provisions of the Act that allow management to appoint and retain inspectors holding a valid, current license under section 1823 of the Act to inspect horses and records for the purposes of determining compliance with the Act. We also added that management may engage one or more HPIs from the list of APHIS trained and licensed HPIs by contacting them directly. 12

12 A list of licensed HPIs will be made available on the APHIS Horse Protection Program Web site.

54 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 56 of 150

A few commenters concerned about conflicts of interest suggested that APHIS should control the designation and assignment of HPIs when show managers request their services.

They stated that if show managers contact HPIs directly, it might be possible for them to select inspectors whom they know and whom they believe will be sympathetic.

APHIS will provide oversight to inspections conducted by HPIs to ensure that HPIs are conducting inspections honestly, fairly, and accurately regardless of whether they know the show manager.

We proposed that only veterinarians and veterinary technicians will be licensed as HPIs, that they must have extensive knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science, and that they must be otherwise eligible to be licensed as HPIs under revised § 11.6. We also proposed that veterinarians must be members of the American Association of Equine

Practitioners, or large animal practitioners with substantial equine experience, or that they be knowledgeable in the area of equine soring and soring practices (for example, Doctors of

Veterinary Medicine with a small animal practice with sufficient knowledge of horses or who teach equine-related subjects in an accredited college or school of veterinary medicine). In addition, we proposed that veterinary technicians with degrees awarded by educational programs accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association Committee on Veterinary

Technician Education and Activities could also be licensed as HPIs if they possess adequate knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science and are otherwise eligible to be licensed as HPIs under proposed § 11.6.

Numerous commenters questioned why only veterinarians or veterinary technicians would be eligible to become HPIs. Many such commenters stated that allowing only veterinarians and veterinary technicians to be HPIs would eliminate many current, reputable

55 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 57 of 150

DQPs from the pool of HPI candidates. One commenter stated that it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars to train a new group of inspectors when there are currently many qualified inspectors being utilized in the present system. This commenter further noted that there would be no advantage to hiring a veterinary technician as an HPI, because veterinary technicians cannot diagnose conditions and present no advantage over an already certified DQP. Another commenter requested that we allow current DQPs only for flat shod shows. In addition, a few commenters asked whether "animal cruelty investigators" would have any authority to enforce the soring regulations at farms or backyards where horses reside. Finally, another commenter suggested “expanding the State Warden Service and/or the City/County/State Police Services to include a Domestic Animal Crimes Unit” to help with instances of soring of horses.

The use of veterinarians and veterinary technicians with equine experience as HPIs was proposed to ensure that inspectors familiar with horses will be used, and to further ensure that inspectors possess a demonstrable level of knowledge, education, and skill to detect and diagnose sore horses and otherwise conduct compliance inspections. During the passage of the

1976 amendments to the HPA, the Executive Branch made plain its interpretation that veterinarians are best qualified to conduct such diagnosis and inspections. Accordingly, in this final rule, we are requiring that, in most cases, HPIs must be veterinarians.

The HPA does not authorize APHIS to expand State and local police services to address instances of soring. However, we recognize that persons with experience enforcing animal welfare laws have knowledge, training, and skills that can be applied to detect soring in horses.

Accordingly, should there be an insufficient pool of veterinarians that are licensed as HPIs as determined by the Administrator, this final rule also provides that APHIS may train and license veterinary technicians and persons employed by State and local government agencies to enforce

56 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 58 of 150

laws and regulations pertaining to animal welfare. Should a person who is so employed by a

State or local government agency wish to become licensed as a HPI, he or she would do so in his or her own private capacity, and not as an agent of any government agency.

Several commenters stated that hiring veterinarians or veterinary technicians as HPIs would add a financial burden to small horse shows and negatively impact flat shod horse shows.

A commenter raised concerns about the costs and availability of suitable inspectors, noting that licensed veterinary professionals would likely charge more for inspection services than current

DQPs; this increased inspection fee, combined with the anticipated reduced number of HPIs, would pose an economic and logistical burden upon State horse industries. One commenter suggested that we develop a regional approach to the HPI program to decrease anticipated travel expenses.

In general, the proposed rule should not adversely impact the shows that do not allow the use of action devices, pads, and wedges (including shows with flat shod classes), or the

Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse industry. It should be noted that management may elect not to hire HPIs for a show and bear liability for any instances of allowing a sore horse to participate in an HPA-covered event or other noncompliance with the Act and its regulations occurring at that horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

Some commenters raised concerns regarding the proposed HPI requirements for veterinarians and veterinary technicians, stating that the requirements listed for veterinarians appear to be more stringent than those for veterinary technicians. One such commenter disagreed with the AAEP membership requirement for veterinarians who wish to be licensed as

HPIs, stating that it is not appropriate for a government agency to require membership in a private organization as part of its licensing regulations.

57 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 59 of 150

In the proposed rule, we proposed that veterinarians who wish to be licensed as HPIs must have extensive knowledge and experience in equine husbandry and science, be eligible to be licensed as HPIs under paragraph (b) of § 11.6 of the proposed rule, be accredited in any State by the USDA under part 161 of the existing regulations, and be 1) members of the AAEP, or 2) large animal practitioners with substantial equine experience, or 3) knowledgeable in the area of equine soring and soring practices. Membership in the AAEP was not proposed as a firm requirement for all veterinarian HPIs, but was rather one of several options listed for veterinarians to demonstrate a sufficient degree of knowledge of equine science. We further proposed that veterinary technicians who wish to become licensed HPIs must have a degree awarded by an educational program accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association

Committee on Veterinary Technician Education and Activities, possess adequate knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science, and must meet the eligibility requirements under paragraph (b) of § 11.6.

However, we agree with the commenter that the necessary qualification requirements for veterinarians and veterinary technicians, as far as HPI licensing is concerned, should be as equivalent as possible. Therefore, we are amending proposed § 11.6(a) to remove the accreditation requirements for veterinarians as well as the requirements listed in paragraphs

(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(iii). The amended HPI requirements for both veterinarians and veterinary technicians will be: Possession of a valid degree (respective to profession), extensive knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science, and the eligibility requirements as stated under paragraph (b) of proposed § 11.6, which is § 11.14(b) in the final rule.

Several commenters questioned what would occur if there are not enough applicants to meet the need for inspectors. Another commenter stated that there is already a paucity of

58 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 60 of 150

veterinarians with equine experience and that the imposed qualification and training

requirements would discourage such professionals from becoming licensed HPIs. Other

commenters questioned the provision excluding those with family and employer ties from being

HPIs, noting that this would disqualify large numbers of local veterinarians and veterinary

technicians from being eligible. Another commenter raised similar concerns, noting that many

local veterinarians and veterinary technicians in gaited horse communities have dealings in the

gaited horse show world. The commenter expressed concern that the HPI requirements would

necessitate additional expenses incurred from flying in out-of-area HPIs.

In response to the question of potential HPI staffing shortages, it is difficult to speculate

as to how many applicants will desire to become HPIs. However, we note that the American

Veterinary Medical Association reports that there were approximately 105,358 veterinarians in

the United States in 2015, of which 8,051 have practices focused on mixed animals or equines.

Currently, there are approximately 90 licensed DQPs, of which a small subset of approximately

30 DQPs conduct the majority of inspections at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

For example, in 2015, more than 75 percent of the inspections reported by HIOs to APHIS were

conducted by 30 DQPs. Given these statistics, we do not anticipate that a staffing shortage will

occur. However, we acknowledge the commenters’ concerns that such a shortage, were it to

occur, could have an impact on management’s ability to hire and utilize HPIs. In light of these

concerns and as mentioned above, we are amending the HPI licensing regulations to allow for

additional qualified applicants in the event that a sufficient number of veterinarians do not apply

to become HPIs. Such applicants will be veterinary technicians and applicants who are

employed by their State or local government agencies to enforce laws or regulations pertaining to

animal welfare. We note that the provision excluding those with family and employer ties to the

59 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 61 of 150

industry from becoming HPIs is intended to prevent potential conflicts of interest between inspectors and horse owners, trainers or management that were noted during the 2010 USDA

OIG audit.

Several commenters agreed that HPIs should have no ties personally or economically to show entrants, one of whom suggested that HPIs make surprise visits to training stables.

Section 1823 of the HPA directs the Secretary to prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by management of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for purposes of enforcing this chapter. The intent of this provision is to provide management with assistance in fulfilling its statutory responsibility to disqualify or prohibit sore horses from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at the shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

A commenter asked if APHIS would need to initiate another proposed rule change in the event of a shortage of licensed HPIs.

As stated above, we are amending the qualifications to become a licensed HPI to extend eligibility to veterinarians first, and then to veterinary technicians and persons who are employed by State or local government agencies to enforce laws or regulations pertaining to animal welfare, provided that they meet the other eligibility requirements and qualifications. We expect there to be a sufficient number of HPI applicants under the revised qualifications and no need for an additional rulemaking.

Some commenters raised concerns about the required qualifications for HPIs to be veterinarians or veterinary technicians. One commenter found the HPI requirements to be not specific enough, requesting that only equine veterinarians be able to qualify for HPI licensing.

Another commenter, who is a current DQP, expressed concern that new HPIs would have

60 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 62 of 150

insufficient training and field experience in comparison to seasoned DQPs. Another commenter

stated that HPIs should have in-depth knowledge of the unique characteristics of Tennessee

Walking Horses to properly inspect the breed.

All HPI applicants accepted by APHIS will receive thorough training. We will ensure

that all licensed HPIs are sufficiently trained to detect soreness in horses and otherwise assess

compliance with the HPA, including among Tennessee Walking Horses.

A few commenters suggested that farriers be allowed to qualify as HPIs or to accompany

licensed HPIs to inspections, given their extensive knowledge of equine hooves. Another

commenter stated that most veterinarians are not trained in gaited shoeing and trimming and

therefore are not qualified to comment on shoe adaptations during the inspection process.

For the reasons discussed above, we believe that veterinarians are best qualified to detect

and diagnose soring in horses, but will expand the candidate pool to include veterinary

technicians and other persons who are employed by State and local government agencies to

enforce laws and regulations pertaining to animal welfare, should there be an insufficient number

of applicants. All HPIs will undergo formal training to sufficiently identify and detect evidence

of soring and other noncompliances with the HPA.

One commenter stated that an unintended consequence of hiring only veterinarians or

veterinary technicians as HPIs would be complaints filed to State licensing boards on behalf of

any horses misdiagnosed or mislabeled as sore. The same commenter also indicated that each

HPI would be held financially liable for diagnoses of sore horses.

Veterinarians who choose to become HPIs will be operating as licensed inspectors and

persons who, pursuant to the Act, are “qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or

otherwise inspect horses for the purposes of enforcing” the Act. Although the HPA’s legislative

61 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 63 of 150

history signals Congress’ interest that veterinarians conduct compliance inspections, the Act itself does not mandate that “persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore” be veterinarians. However, a veterinarian’s professional experience will be an asset in performing this work even though the inspections conducted under the HPA, in and of themselves, do not require a veterinary medical degree or constitute the practice of veterinary medicine.

Credential Requirements and Verification

Two commenters raised concerns about the credential requirements for trainers of potential HPIs. The commenters both cited a passage from an APHIS employment advertisement indicating that the VMO career program aims to recruit entry-level veterinarians.

In light of this example, the commenters stated that HPIs, who as proposed must have adequate equine experience in addition to a valid veterinary or veterinary technician degree, should not be held to a higher standard than the APHIS employee(s) who would be training them.

Any APHIS employees in supervisory, training, or oversight positions will have sufficient levels of knowledge and experience to effectively train and license HPIs. Such employees will have undergone their own formal training to ensure subject matter proficiency prior to training prospective HPIs.

Two commenters expressed concerns about APHIS’ ability to verify credentials of HPI applicants based on the 2013 OIG Audit Report “Verifying Credentials of Veterinarians

Employed or Accredited by USDA.” The commenters stated that this report shows that the

USDA did not adequately verify prospective veterinarians’ education requirements, equivalent degrees, specialized experience and/or references, and questioned how future applicants will be sufficiently vetted with continuing issues related to cost and applicant shortages.

62 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 64 of 150

We are confident in APHIS’ ability to review HPI applicants as outlined in this final rule.

If there are any questions concerning a prospective applicant’s educational or other qualifications, APHIS can conduct additional inquiries to verify the information with State licensing boards and other agencies and organizations.

We proposed to include a provision in paragraph (b)(1) of revised § 11.6 stating that

APHIS will not license any person as an HPI if that person has been convicted or found to have violated any provision of the Act or the regulations in 9 CFR part 11 occurring after July 13,

1976, or has been assessed any fine or civil penalty, or has been the subject of a disqualification order in any proceeding involving an alleged violation with the Act or regulations occurring after

July 13, 1976. Anyone who has been found in violation with the Act or subject to an order assessing a fine or civil penalty or imposing a disqualification period will not be allowed to be an

HPI.

A commenter recommended that this provision be expanded to make any conviction under State or Federal law for animal cruelty or neglect, or any administrative penalty or suspension imposed for violating professional licensure requirements, a disqualifying factor for licensure as an HPI.

We are making no changes in response to the comment. The commenter noted also that proposed §§ 11.6(b)(4)(i) and (ii) touch on these issues and we believe that the language in these paragraphs, which is codified in this final rule, adequately addresses the types of convictions, penalties, and suspensions cited by the commenter.

Another commenter expressed concern that HPI applicants APHIS has determined to be in noncompliance with the Act would not be eligible for licensing under the proposed HPI requirements. The commenter stated that such a rule precludes those who have been in

63 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 65 of 150

noncompliance with the Act from being afforded their full rights to due process in appealing to

the USDA, and referred to the provision as arbitrary and capricious.

As outlined in proposed § 11.6, any person who is assessed a penalty or other sanction

under the Act is afforded the opportunity for a hearing regarding the matter. With respect to

licensing eligibility, the current standard for licensing DQPs includes a provision to prohibit

those who have been in violation with the Act from becoming licensed inspectors for a period of

at least 2 years following the first such violation, and for a period of at least 5 years following the

second such violation and any subsequent violation with the Act. The proposed rule removes the

time period restrictions to prohibit any person convicted or found to have been in violation with

the Act or its regulations from obtaining a license as an HPI. The reason for this requirement is

to ensure that all inspectors meet the same high level of professional integrity and reputation in

carrying out the duties of an HPI. This requirement also ensures that all horses receive the

benefit of a safe, proper, and unbiased inspection. HPI applicants may appeal the denial of a

license application to the Administrator within 30 days from the date of the decision as outlined

in proposed § 11.6(e).

A commenter representing a walking horse organization disagreed with the inclusion of

the phrase “found to have violated” in proposed § 11.6(b)(1). The commenter stated it is vague

and could refer to a finding other than a conviction in a court or administrative proceeding.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. In the context of the paragraph the phrase clearly indicates that persons are disqualified from being licensed as an HPI if they are found to have violated any provisions of the Act or regulations. A finding of a violation is made after an adjudicatory proceeding in any form, including civil, criminal or administrative, or in the context of an admission in a plea agreement, consent decision and order, or similar document.

64 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 66 of 150

We also proposed in § 11.6(b)(2) a restriction against licensing any person as an HPI if that person, any member of that person’s immediate family, or that person’s employer participates in the showing of horses or acts as a judge or farrier, or is an agent of management involving any Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.

A commenter disagreed with this provision because it only disqualifies people from serving as HPIs if they engage in activities with specific breeds, with no reason given for this distinction from other breeds. The commenter also disagreed with our use of the word “agent,” stating that it could be applied to routine banking or real estate transactions.

We agree with this commenter that the restriction against licensing any person as an HPI if that person or his or her employer or immediate family participates in the showing of horses or acts as a judge or farrier, or is an agent of management should extend to all breeds, as the potential for a conflict of interest is the same. This final rule amends the regulations accordingly.

With respect to our use of the word “agent,” we consider the meaning to be clear within the context of the paragraph.

A commenter asked that we include additional conflicts of interest that preclude licensing of persons as HPIs, including persons receiving a letter of warning or having been the subject of a request for a letter of warning and persons having any contractual or business connection with management. The commenter also asked that we add a statement to the regulations that allows

APHIS to refuse to license an applicant on grounds not specifically provided in the regulations.

We consider the grounds we proposed for denying licenses to applicants to be sufficient to address potential conflicts of interest.

One commenter expressed concern that this provision would exclude a valuable subset of horse owners, farriers, and trainers with horse experience, expertise, and passion from becoming

65 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 67 of 150

HPIs. The commenter stated that the proposed terms to eliminate conflicts of interest were overly broad and suggested that more reasonable criteria be proposed.

We disagree with the commenter that the restriction against licensing HPIs with conflicts of interest is overly broad. Evidence in the 2010 OIG audit report clearly demonstrates the conflicts of interest that exist with the existing restrictions for DQPs and the ineffectiveness of the resulting system. Our experience in administering and enforcing the Act and regulations, and overseeing DQP performance, confirms that eliminating such conflicts of interest is critical to the task of strengthening the inspection process.

A commenter asked that the proposed prohibition regarding conflicts of interest should also apply to family or employers participating in exhibitions, sales, and auctions of Tennessee

Walking Horses, not just shows.

We acknowledge the commenter’s observation and are amending the provision to include any horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

We proposed in revised § 11.6(b)(4) that APHIS will not license any person as an HPI if the professional integrity, reputation, honesty, practices, and reliability of the person do not support a conclusion that the applicant meets the minimum requirements of § 11.14. The information that APHIS will consider in reaching a conclusion that an applicant meets the minimum required standards to become an HPI includes: Criminal conviction records; official records of the person’s actions while participating in Federal, State, or local veterinary programs; judicial determinations in any type of litigation; and any other evidence that reflects on the integrity, reputation, honesty, practices, and reliability of the person.

66 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 68 of 150

We outlined the requirement in proposed § 11.6(c)(1) that persons wishing to become an

HPI will have to submit an application to APHIS, show that they satisfy the qualifications and requirements for licensure, and complete a formal training program administered by APHIS.

We proposed to include a requirement providing that, after an HPI candidate successfully completes all the requirements proposed in § 11.6, he or she will be licensed for 1 year. Licenses will terminate after 1 year and all HPIs will be required to reapply if they wish to be licensed another year.

One commenter asked if there will be a test of equine knowledge for HPI qualification.

Yes. The proposed rule states in § 11.6(c)(1), “Licensing of HPIs,” that applicants selected as candidates to become HPIs will complete a formal training program administered by

APHIS to include instruction on anatomy and physiology of the limbs of a horse, the Act and its regulations, the history of (and inspection procedures to detect) soring, practical instruction using live horses, HPI standards of conduct, and recordkeeping requirements. As indicated in

§ 11.6(c)(2), after a candidate successfully completes the formal training program as outlined in this section, he or she must pass a written examination before being issued a license.

One commenter questioned whether there would be expected annual application fees for

HPIs.

There will be no annual application fees.

We proposed to include inspector requirements in a revised paragraph § 11.6(d) titled

“Requirements to be met by HPIs.”

We proposed in § 11.6(d)(1) that any licensed HPI appointed and retained by management to inspect horses for the purpose of determining compliance with the Act and regulations must collect and maintain certain records concerning any horse which the HPI

67 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 69 of 150

recommends be prohibited for any reason from such horse show, exhibition, sale or auction, from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned.

We also proposed in § 11.6(d)(2) that copies of records must be submitted by the HPI to management and to APHIS within 72 hours of conclusion of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. In addition, proposed § 11.6(d)(3) would require that the HPI, after completing the inspection, informs the custodian of each horse found noncompliant with the Act or its regulations, or prohibited for any other reason, of such action and the specific reasons for such action.

A commenter stated that this provision should be modified to provide that for each horse an HPI finds to be noncompliant with the Act and regulations, the HPI must provide the custodian with the information set out in proposed § 11.6(d)(1)(viii).

In § 11.14(d)(4) of this final rule, we are requiring that the HPI shall immediately notify management of any horse which, in the HPI’s opinion, is sore or otherwise not in compliance with the Act or regulations. Management alone is responsible for disqualifying and prohibiting sore horses from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned. We view the logistics of how management elects to notify the owner, trainer, or other person having immediate custody or responsibility for a horse of its decision to be a matter of management’s discretion.

In proposed § 11.6(e), we proposed that APHIS may deny or revoke a license for any of the reasons proposed in revised § 11.6(b), and will revoke the license of any HPI who fails to follow the inspection procedures set forth in proposed § 11.12, or who otherwise carries out his or her duties and responsibilities in a less than satisfactory manner. Upon denial or revocation of a license, the applicant or HPI may appeal the denial or revocation to the Administrator within

30 days from the date of such decision, and the Administrator will make a final determination in

68 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 70 of 150

the matter. If the Administrator upholds the denial or revocation of the license, the applicant or

HPI will be given notice and opportunity for a hearing. Hearings will be in accordance with the

Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR 1.130-1.151. The license denial shall remain in effect until the final decision has been rendered.

We proposed in § 11.6(f) the provision that inspectors licensed by an HIO prior to the

effective date of this rulemaking will no longer be allowed to perform inspection duties under

that license after the effective date, and that persons seeking to become inspectors after the

effective date of this rulemaking will need to apply for a license issued by APHIS and fulfill all

HPI eligibility requirements included in revised § 11.6.

One commenter asked that we extend current DQP licenses beyond the effective date of

the final rule so that inspections of events can continue until APHIS is able to train and license

new HPIs.

In this final rule, we are delaying the effective date of the implementation of all sections,

other than §§ 11.2 and 11.14, until January 1, 2018. Current DQP licenses will remain valid

until that effective date. Concurrently, we are making § 11.14 effective on [Insert date 30 days

after date of publication in the Federal Register] to allow sufficient time to train and license HPIs

and ensure an adequate number before the start of the 2018 show season.

Other Concerns

A commenter requested improved safeguards against conflicts of interest with inspectors

and management. Another commenter raised concerns about the potential for retaliation against

local veterinarians who become licensed as HPIs.

The purpose of the proposed system of licensing, training and overseeing HPIs is tailored

specifically toward eliminating conflicts of interest between inspectors and management,

69 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 71 of 150

trainers, owners, or other industry personnel. While the 2010 OIG audit report references the

threatening atmosphere in many horse shows and other events where APHIS representatives are

present, we are unaware of any threats made to DQPs. However, in an abundance of caution, we

proposed in § 11.9(b) (final rule §§ 11.6(a) and 11.9(b)) provisions to require management to

provide safe conditions for APHIS representatives, and applied most of those same safeguards to

HPIs. These provisions proposed that management must control crowds or onlookers so that

APHIS representatives may carry out their duties safely and without interference, and that

management must not impede, intimidate, or interfere with APHIS representatives or influence

attendees to do the same.

Two commenters stated that APHIS is acting in conflict with the HPA in replacing the

current DQP program, finding that the proposed HPI system would remove the horse industry’s

role in enforcing the HPA. The commenters cite § 1823(c) of the HPA, which states that

“[APHIS] shall prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by management of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purposes of enforcing this chapter.” The commenters indicated that Congress intended with

this provision for the horse industry to hold a significant role in HPA enforcement, and that the

proposed HPI system both removes the role of the industry through the removal of HIO

regulatory responsibilities, and makes HPIs de facto agents of APHIS instead of third-party

inspectors. One of the commenters further note that APHIS’ role in licensing and training HPIs

would constitute a conflict of interest between APHIS and inspectors.

We disagree with the commenters that the HPI program conflicts with the provisions or

intent of the HPA and makes HPIs de facto agents of APHIS, and note that § 1823 of the Act

gives clear authority to APHIS both to regulate the requirements for inspector appointments and

70 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 72 of 150

to conduct its own inspections. In addition to directing the Secretary to establish regulations for the appointment by management of persons qualified to conduct inspections under the Act, this section also provides that the appointment of inspectors “…shall not be construed as authorizing such person to conduct inspections in a manner other than that prescribed for inspections by the

Secretary (or the Secretary’s representative) under subsection (e).” Subsection (e) of § 1823 provides that “[f]or purposes of enforcement of this chapter (including any regulation

promulgated under this chapter) the Secretary, or any representative of the Secretary duly

designated by the Secretary, may inspect any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or

auction or any horse at any such show, exhibition, sale or auction….” We further note that the

relevant 1976 amendments to the HPA were principally intended to alleviate burdens the Agency

had encountered in its previous enforcement efforts and that contemporaneous statements by the

Executive Branch indicated an intent to have veterinarians serve in this capacity.

We also disagree with the commenters’ statements regarding the horse industry’s role in

relation to the HPI program; show managers are part of the horse industry and will remain

integral to the inspection process, including the hiring of HPIs. Additionally, though APHIS will

train, license, and oversee HPIs, HPIs will not be employed by or agents of the Agency. We

disagree with the commenter that the HPI program would present a conflict of interest with

APHIS and HPIs in conducting inspections, as the Agency has no vested interest in HPA-

covered events except to enforce the HPA and regulations.

Management Responsibilities: Access, Space, and Facilities (Proposed § 11.9, Final §§ 11.5 and

11.6).

We proposed in § 11.9 to include space and facility provisions requiring management to

provide safe and accessible space and facilities for authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives

71 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 73 of 150

to carry out duties under the Act and regulations, including inspection of horses and records, whether or not management has received prior notification or otherwise knows that the show, exhibition, sale, or auction may be inspected by APHIS.

We proposed in § 11.9(a)(1) that management must, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives with unlimited and unrestricted access to the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and all other areas of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Proposed § 11.9(a)(2) similarly requires that management provide authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives with an adequate, sufficient, safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of horses while such horses are competitively or otherwise performing at any horse show or exhibition. This requirement also applies while such horses are being sold or auctioned, or offered for sale or auction.

As we proposed, we are including space requirements in § 11.9(b)(1) through (b)(3) (in the final rule: § 11.6(a)(1) through (a)(5)). Paragraph (b)(1) requires that management provide sufficient space in a convenient location to the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction arena, acceptable to authorized HPIs or APHIS representatives, in which horses may be physically, thermographically, or otherwise inspected for soring.

One commenter stated that the space requirements necessary for the use of thermographic equipment during inspections would impose a financial burden on management.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. This provision, with the exception of minor clarifying changes, has been in the existing regulations for decades. Based on our experience conducting inspections at HPA-covered events, meeting this requirement has not imposed a financial burden on management.

72 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 74 of 150

Proposed paragraph § 11.9(b)(2) requires that management provide protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, and wind for the inspection space at every event so that inspections can be performed safely and accurately.

Some commenters disagreed with the proposed space requirements. One commenter stated that there is not always access to indoor facilities at many local horse shows, and that the requirement to provide protection from elements of nature places an undue burden on smaller organizations. Another commenter noted that many gaited horse shows are held at schools, athletic fields, and small parks that are not set up to accommodate these sheltering requirements.

We are making no changes, as the space requirements in the proposed and final rule do not differ significantly from current provisions for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

Historically, we have not observed problems with management meeting these requirements.

In proposed paragraph (b)(3) we also added a requirement that management maintain control of crowds or onlookers in order that authorized HPIs and APHIS representatives may carry out their duties safely and without interference. In the proposed rule, we requested public comment on instances in which it would it be necessary to hire security personnel to protect

HPIs. We also proposed the requirement that management ensure that each horse in the designated inspection and warm-up areas be accompanied by no more than three individuals, including the trainer, rider, and the custodian. Official guests of management, such as elected officials, legislators, and technical advisers will be allowed access to the designated inspection and warm-up areas for limited periods of time at the discretion of management and only with the concurrence of an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.

One commenter stated that elected officials, legislators, and technical advisors pose no threat to inspectors and will not limit proper inspections, and requested that the requirement be

73 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 75 of 150

removed from the proposal. Other commenters similarly stated that spectators and advisors pose no problems in the inspection area.

We disagree with these commenters. Persons congregating in inspection areas can jeopardize their own safety as well as the safety of custodians and inspectors should a horse become unruly. We had noted in the proposed rule that people congregating in designated inspection and warm-up areas can impede the ability of APHIS representatives to perform their duties. After review of the proposed provision and available data and information on security threats and incidents at HPA-covered events, we are amending the regulations in this final rule to allow only the person having immediate custody or responsibility for the horse to accompany the animal into the inspection area, while retaining the proposed allowance for up to three individuals to accompany the horse in the designated warm-up area. We also make clear that management is allowed in the inspection and warm-up areas and that official guests of management, such as elected officials, legislators, and technical advisors may be allowed access to the warm-up area and inspection area for limited periods of time at the discretion of management and only with the concurrence of an APHIS representative, if present. No other persons are allowed in the warm-up or inspection areas.

Another commenter stated that this requirement limits those accused of noncompliance with the Act of their right to defend themselves through the limitation of potential witnesses and limits participants’ right to assemble.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. Inspections are typically within view of other persons in or around the inspection area. The requirement to prohibit an excessive number of persons in the inspection area ensures that inspectors can do their jobs effectively and safely.

74 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 76 of 150

We proposed to include in § 11.9(b)(3)(ii) a requirement that management must not in any way influence attendees to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with authorized HPIs or APHIS representatives.

One commenter stated that security for APHIS representatives at shows is a needless expenditure of government money, as the commenter has seen no threatening behavior or intimidation at shows. Another commenter representing a walking horse organization stated that the provision violates management’s free speech rights, and is overly broad in restricting forms of communication between management and attendees relating to inspectors.

The requirement does not restrict communication between management and attendees or other persons, but instead prohibits persons from influencing show attendees to assault, resist, oppose, impede, or intimidate, or interfere with HPIs and APHIS representatives. We also consider it a matter of safety to protect inspectors from physical harm. As we noted in the proposed rule, our experience, which is corroborated by the USDA OIG report, has shown that threatening and intimidating behavior toward APHIS officials has occurred within inspection areas.

This comment highlighted for us the need to further clarify and conform this change to the regulations to track the statutory intent of 15 U.S.C. 1825(a)(2)(C), which states that: “Any person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties under this chapter shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both,” and with the prohibitions in 15 U.S.C. 1824(9), which makes unlawful the failure or refusal to permit entry or inspection, as required by Section 1823 of the HPA. Accordingly, we further clarify in

§ 11.5(c) of this final rule that no person shall assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or

75 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 77 of 150

interfere with APHIS representatives or in any way influence attendees of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to do the same.

We proposed to include in § 11.9(b)(4) the requirement that management provide an accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical power source for the inspection space if requested by an authorized HPI or APHIS representative.

A few commenters stated that this requirement would be a burden on smaller horse shows and exhibitions, as many such events are held in fields and other open areas where an electric source is not readily available. Another commenter stated that APHIS has not provided a reasoned analysis why it is changing this requirement from what in the existing regulations.

In response to these comments, we are retaining the existing regulation, which only applies when electrical service is available at the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

Management Responsibilities; Operation of Horse Shows, Horse Exhibitions, and Horse Sales and Auctions (Proposed § 11.10).

We proposed in § 11.10(a)(1) a requirement that management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction involving Tennessee Walking Horses, racking horses, and related breeds notify the Administrator of the event at least 30 days before it begins by mail, fax, or electronic means such as e-mail. Notification must include: The name and location of the show, exhibition, sale, or auction; the name and address of the manager; a phone number and e- mail address (if available); the date or dates of the show, exhibition, sale, or auction; and a copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction program, if any such program has been

76 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 78 of 150

prepared. Notification will also have to include the names of the APHIS-licensed HPIs scheduled to perform inspections at the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

A number of commenters objected to the 30-day advance notice for shows, with some stating there should be no requirement for providing advance notice. One commenter stated that the requirement will burden local, backyard gaited shows and suggested that it be waived for small shows with fewer than 20 horses. Similarly, a commenter requested that 4-H or small community events that include a couple of flat shod country pleasure classes with fewer than 20 gaited horses not be required to notify APHIS.

We disagree with the commenter that the notification requirement itself constitutes a burden, as the same amount of information is required regardless of the number of horses participating in the event. We are also amending the section to specify that it applies to all horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions that include Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, which have a history of soring and for which soring continues to be a concern.

In paragraph (a)(2) of proposed § 11.10, we required management to ensure that no action devices or substances prohibited under § 11.2 are present in the warm-up area.

One commenter representing a walking horse organization noted that there is no parallel provision in the current regulations and stated that while this proposed provision requires management to ensure that no devices or substances prohibited under §11.2 are present in the warm-up area, this is unfair because other provisions of the rule prohibit management from being in the warm-up area.

We note that there is no parallel provision in the current regulations because we are adding new provisions prohibiting action devices (other than certain boots) and substances on horses on the show grounds and at all sales and auctions. However, we acknowledge the

77 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 79 of 150

commenter’s concern over the need to allow management in the warm-up area to enforce the prohibitions listed in proposed § 11.2. Therefore, we are adding a “management” representative to the list of persons allowed in the warm-up area in proposed § 11.12(c)(2) (in the final rule:

§ 11.6(b)).

In paragraph (a)(3) of proposed § 11.10, we required that management post the list of people who have been disqualified by USDA in a prominent place at the event. We included these requirements because we agreed with the USDA OIG audit indicating that current operating requirements are insufficient to enforce prohibitions on persons who have been disqualified from participation in horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. We proposed in paragraph (a)(4) that management check the people entering horses in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction against the list of people who have been disqualified by USDA and prevent them from entering their horses if they are on the list.

One commenter asked whether management is responsible for maintaining documentation showing that they have checked the licenses or other identification of persons entering horses against the list of disqualified persons. The commenter recommended changing this requirement in (a)(4) to “Prohibit anyone on the list noted in paragraph (a)(3) from entering their horses.”

We agree with the intent of this comment and have revised the regulations in this final rule to require management to review the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and disallow the participation of any such person in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, for the duration of the period of disqualification.

78 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 80 of 150

One commenter noted that the requirement for management to check identification was a task previously handled by the HIO or DQP. The commenter argued that this would be an additional burden placed on management.

The HPA has long held management liable for penalties for knowingly allowing any person under an order of disqualification to participate in their event and is therefore the entity responsible for ensuring that no person under disqualification participates in a HPA-covered event. Accordingly, we do not believe the requirement codified in this final rule is represents a new burden to management. Moreover, although management is responsible for meeting this requirement, management may arrange for another person to perform this task on its behalf.

A commenter representing a walking horse organization stated that the current regulations do not impose such an obligation to post such a list and that it would impose costs on management and conflict with free speech rights.

We are amending the regulations in this final rule to more specifically require that management review the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and disallow the participation of any such person in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, for the duration of the period of disqualification. This final rule contains no requirement that such a list be posted at a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

In proposed § 11.10(a)(5), we required that management ensure (verify) that all horses entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction be properly identified by one of the following methods: A description sufficient to identify the individual equine, as determined by

APHIS, to include name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present (e.g., brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, or

79 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 81 of 150

blemishes); electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/11785;13 an equine passport

issued by a State government and accepted in the government of the State in which the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction will occur; or digital photographs sufficient to identify the

individual equine, as determined by an authorized HPI or an APHIS representative. If any such

horses belong to a registry, the registry number and registry records have to be provided to an

authorized HPI and/or APHIS representative upon request. We noted in the proposed rule that

APHIS may add at its discretion additional forms of identification. In this final rule, we are

codifying these provisions, with the exception of allowing a horse to be identified by digital

photographs, which have the potential for error and to be labor-intensive, insofar as the proposed

rule would require an HPI or APHIS to determine that the photographs are sufficient to

individually identify horses.

The management of a horse show, exhibition, sale or auction is not required under the

current regulations to designate and appoint inspectors to conduct inspections. The proposed

regulations retain this provision. However, consistent with the HPA, this final rule provides that

management not using an inspector from the list of APHIS-trained and licensed inspectors will

be held liable for the participation of any sore horse in an HPA-covered event. Management will

also have to fulfill the notification requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3). If they choose

to use APHIS-licensed inspectors, management may be held liable for failing to disqualify from

being shown or exhibited or prohibit from being sold or auctioned any horse (1) which is sore,

and (2) after having been notified by such person or the Secretary that the horse is sore or after

otherwise having knowledge that the horse is sore. Horses entered in a sale or auction shall be

inspected for soreness and identified as sore prior to entering the ring. Sore horses that have

13 An international standard regulating the radio frequency identification (RFID) of animals.

80 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 82 of 150

been entered in a show or exhibition for the purpose of showing or exhibition will have to be identified and disqualified by management. Sore horses participating in a show or exhibition compete unfairly with horses that are not sore. Management will be responsible for prohibiting such horses from participating in HPA-covered events immediately (e.g., before they are placed in a class or the completion of the event).

In proposed § 11.10(b)(1), we included the requirement that any horse placing first, second, or third, and any other horses indicated by management in each Tennessee Walking

Horse, racking horse, or related breed class or event at any horse show or exhibition, would have to be inspected after being shown or exhibited to determine if such horses are compliant with the

Act or regulations. We also proposed to require that, in instances where a horse is found sore during participation in a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, management shall disqualify the horse from further competition.

One commenter noted a discrepancy between the inspection requirements in this section and in proposed § 11.12 with respect to which horses must be inspected at horse shows and exhibitions.

In proposed § 11.12(a)(1), we stated that horses that perform with an accentuated gait that raises concerns about soring and that are tied first in their class or event are required to be inspected, as well as any other horses in a class or event at any horse show or exhibition that, in the view of the HPI, raises concerns about soring. We intended to require inspection for horses that place first, second, and third, along with any other horses indicated by management in each class or event. Therefore, we are establishing these requirements in §§ 11.15(a)(1)(iv) and

11.9(a) of this final rule.

81 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 83 of 150

A commenter asked that APHIS clarify language on whether management

disqualifications should be done at the tying of a class or the completion of a show.

It is the responsibility of management to ensure that sore horses are not unfairly competing with horses that are not sore. In this final rule, we clarify that, if a horse is found sore

during actual participation in a HPA-covered event, management must immediately disqualify

the horse.

Under proposed § 11.10(b)(2), we required that copies of the records required under

proposed § 11.6(d)(1) be collected and submitted by management to APHIS within 72 hours

after the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is over.

One commenter asked whether it is management's responsibility to obtain the required

documentation and provide copies to APHIS when there is no HPI working at an event.

For shows who do not use HPIs, it is management's responsibility to provide this

documentation to APHIS. Shows and other events that do not use HPIs are subject to the same

recordkeeping and reporting requirements as those using HPIs, with the exception of information

identifying HPIs.

We required in proposed § 11.10(c)(1) that management appoint a minimum of two HPIs

when 150 or fewer horses are entered in an event and more than two HPIs when more than 150

horses are entered.

Many commenters stated that the cost of requiring 2 HPIs at every show or event

involving 150 or fewer horses will constitute a prohibitive cost burden. Commenters frequently

cited small local horse shows and shows held to benefit charities that would be most negatively

affected. Some commenters suggested various numbers of horses for which shows hiring

licensed HPIs would only need to hire one inspector. One such commenter stated that hiring one

82 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 84 of 150

HPI if 75 or fewer horses are entered would be sufficient. Another placed the number for a

single HPI at 30 or fewer horses and stated that 2 HPIs and a farrier for 60 or more horses would

be appropriate. A commenter noted that the number of horses that may be entered in a small

show can vary widely, making it difficult for management to decide in advance whether to hire

only two HPIs and risk being in noncompliance with the Act if the number of horses entered

exceeds 150.

We acknowledge the commenters’ concerns regarding the number of HPIs required to be

designated and appointed at a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and the potential impact of

the proposed requirements on small shows. Accordingly, we have amended proposed

§ 11.10(c)(1) (in the final rule: § 11.9(b)(2)) to require that management that designates and

appoints APHIS-licensed HPIs to inspect horses must designate and appoint at least one HPI if

150 horses or fewer are entered in the event. If more than 150 horses are entered in the horse

show, exhibition, sale, or auction, the management must designate and appoint at least two

APHIS-licensed HPIs, should management elect to appoint and retain HPIs. These numbers of

required HPIs are the same as those in current § 11.20(c). We emphasize that it remains the

responsibility of management to designate and appoint a sufficient number of HPIs to inspect

sore horses with the goal of preventing such sore horses from competing in events.

We also included in proposed § 11.10(c)(1) the requirement that management must make

a farrier available to assist with inspections at every horse show, exhibition, sale, and auction.

Substantial numbers of commenters questioned the need for a farrier at every show, many of whom cited the cost burden on small shows. One commenter asked if farriers are only required at shows with HPIs. Several commenters stated that a farrier would be an unnecessary

financial expense for small flat shod shows such as those that have a show without the shoe or

83 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 85 of 150

“don’t show” rule. The commenter suggested that shows with fewer than 20 horses need not have a farrier present to help with inspections. Another commenter asked that we consider an

"on-call" farrier requirement for shows with fewer than 75 horses. One commenter asked whether the farrier requirement applied to all breeds or only those in danger of soring. A commenter noted that there exists no accredited, professional course of training and study required to work as a farrier and raised several questions about the farrier’s role; in particular, what certification and qualifications are necessary, who will select the farrier, and what legal responsibilities will the farrier have. The commenter recommended that we amend the requirement to specify “licensed, professional” farriers.

Because this final rule continues to allow for the use of pads and wedges for therapeutic treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, we continue to believe that it is necessary for management to make a farrier available to assist with inspections of horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that allow such horses to participate in a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. To accomplish this objective, however, we believe that a farrier need only be physically present if more than 150 horses are entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and if the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction allows Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses to participate in therapeutic pads or wedges. For horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions with 150 or fewer horses entered in the HPA-covered event, management must, at minimum, have a farrier on call to come to the event if the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction allows Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses to participate in therapeutic pads or wedges. We have amended the regulations in this final rule accordingly.

Under proposed § 11.10(c)(4), we required that management not dismiss or otherwise interfere with an HPI during the HPI’s appointed tour of duty, which is the duration of the show,

84 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 86 of 150

exhibition, sale, or auction. If management believes that a horse is sore but it is not identified as

sore by the HPI, management will prohibit that horse from participating and immediately notify

the Administrator, in writing, as to why the performance of an HPI was inadequate or

unsatisfactory. Management shall prohibit from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned any

horse identified by the HPI to be sore or otherwise known by management to be sore. Should

management fail to prohibit any such horse from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned,

management will assume full responsibility for and liabilities arising from the showing,

exhibition, sale, or auction of such horses.

One commenter asked how APHIS will stand behind management's decision if the HPI

does not disqualify a horse that management deems sore.

Management is responsible for disqualifying and prohibiting sore horses from being

shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at HPA-covered events. If management fails to disqualify

or prohibit a horse from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned and it had knowledge that the

horse was sore, management may be subject to penalties and other sanctions under the HPA,

after notice and an opportunity for a hearing has been provided.

Management Responsibilities: Records and Reporting (Proposed § 11.11, Final §§ 11.10, 11.11,

and 11.12).

In the proposed rule, we consolidated the records and reporting requirements for

management in a new § 11.11 titled “Management Responsibilities: Records and Reporting.”

In proposed § 11.11(a)(1), we required that management maintain all records for a period

of at least 6 years, instead of the current 90 days, following the closing date of the show, exhibition, or sale or auction. We are making the record maintenance requirements specifically for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that include Tennessee Walking Horses and

85 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 87 of 150

racking horses to ensure that records remain available for verifying compliance with the Act and regulations.

A few commenters stated that there was not enough storage capacity for small organizations and clubs to keep records for 6 years. One commenter stated that many small shows would need to implement more extensive computer systems to comply with this requirement. Another commenter noted that shifting the recordkeeping burden from HIOs to management would make this requirement especially difficult, particularly given the previous

90-day record maintenance requirement. One commenter stated that 3 years is sufficient time, and another suggested a 2 year requirement unless a dispute arises. A commenter asked that we evaluate management responsibilities to get a better sense of their administrative burdens.

We acknowledge the burdens cited by the commenters and are retaining the existing 90- day recordkeeping requirement in this final rule and adding that management must submit the records to APHIS within 30 days following the conclusion of the show or other HPA-covered event. These changes would relieve management of any record maintenance requirements beyond the existing 90-day retention period while ensuring the Department has records necessary to effectively administer the HPA, including, but not limited to, conducting investigations into alleged violations of the HPA.

In proposed § 11.11(c)(1), we included the requirement that following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, racking horses, or related breeds, the management will have to submit to the Administrator the information required by proposed § 11.11(a)(1) and submit a report listing the name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse disqualified from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such

86 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 88 of 150

action. We will allow this information to be submitted within 30 days following the conclusion of the show or other event to give management more time to compile the information. If no horses are disqualified, the management will still be required to submit a report stating this fact.

One commenter stated that post-show reporting is a burden and asked APHIS to provide electronic forms for management to submit to APHIS.

We are always seeking ways to streamline the reporting process for stakeholders and will take the commenter’s suggestion into consideration.

We also included in proposed § 11.11(c)(2) the existing requirement that following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction that does not include Tennessee

Walking Horses, racking horses, or related breeds, the management must inform the

Administrator of any case where a horse was disqualified by management or its representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be sore. We will allow this information to be submitted within 30 days following the conclusion of the show or other event.

One commenter asked what type of documentation is acceptable to APHIS to substantiate a decision by management to disqualify an entry if the HPI disagrees.

APHIS requires no documentation for this decision. We note that proposed § 11.10(c)(4)

(final § 11.9(b)(4)) states that management, not the HPI or APHIS, is responsible for the decision to disqualify a horse. If management has knowledge that a horse is sore, management should disqualify or prohibit the horse from participating in the event.

87 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 89 of 150

Inspection Procedures for HPIs (Proposed § 11.12, Final §§ 11.6 and 11.15).

We proposed to add a new § 11.12 in which inspection procedures in the existing regulations in § 11.20, § 11.21, and elsewhere in part 11 will be consolidated and revised. As a result of this change, we are removing §§ 11.20 and 11.21 from the regulations.

We included a requirement in proposed § 11.12(a)(1) that the HPI physically inspect all horses for which soring is a concern that are:

• Entered for sale or auction;

• Entered in any accentuated gait class (whether under saddle, horse to cart, or

otherwise), regardless of breed;

• Entered for exhibition before they are admitted to be shown, exhibited, sold, or

auctioned, except as provided in proposed § 11.12(a)(2);

• Placed first, second, or third in their class or event; and

• Any other horse in a class or event at any horse show or exhibition that, in the view of

the HPI, raises a concern about soring. Such an inspection will be for the purpose of

determining whether any such horses are in compliance with the Act or regulations.

Such physical inspection will be conducted in accordance with the inspection

procedures provided for in proposed § 11.12.

A commenter opposed to the rule stated that USDA inspectors at events unfairly focus their inspections on padded horses. Several commenters disagreed with our inclusion of the language “regardless of breed” in proposed § 11.12(a)(1)(ii) with the requirement that all horses for which soring is a concern be physically inspected. Many of these commenters stated that this language would include trotting breeds such as Morgans, Saddlebreds, and Arabians.

88 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 90 of 150

Consistent with the existing requirements for inspections conducted by DQPs, we are focusing the inspection requirements for HPIs on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses in this final rule because we have reason to believe that soring is of greatest concern in those breeds of horses. For example, our records show that the majority of cases where sore horses and other noncompliances occur is at shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses that wear stacked pads and action devices.

In proposed § 11.12(a)(2), we included the requirement that when a horse is presented for inspection, its custodian must present the HPI with a record or entry card that includes the horse’s required identifying information.

Several commenters asked questions about this proposed requirement, including who issues the card, whether the card can be used all year or only for each exhibition, whether the card will have a fee, and how the HPI confirms that the identifying information matches the horse being presented.

Based on the commenters’ questions and a reassessment of the requirement, we have determined that completing the entry sheet as is typically required by management will be a sufficient record for identification purposes and that no separate entry card is required. We are amending the regulations accordingly.

One commenter noted that we did not retain the provision from current § 11.20(b)(2) stating that if an inspector is at another show, he or she “shall examine any horse which he determines should be examined for compliance with the Act and regulations." The commenter stated that we are removing authority that should belong to the inspector and asked us to restore this “off-duty” authority at other shows.

89 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 91 of 150

The deletion of this provision from the proposed rule was inadvertent and we have retained the existing provision in this final rule. In addition, in response to this comment, we are clarifying this provision slightly to make clear that such inspections are not being conducted while a HPI is “off-duty” at other shows, but rather are being conducted by HPIs appointed and retained by management to conduct inspections other than those specifically prescribed by regulation. HPIs that are not appointed or retained by management should not conduct inspections in their official capacity at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions.

A commenter asked why APHIS officials should have the right to inquire as to whether a specific horse is in attendance at a show. The commenter also asked why APHIS officials should have access to a horse’s name, owner information, or trainer information.

Section 11.12(a)(2) was intended to identify horses that management already disqualified from showing, exhibition, sale, or auction at a particular show, exhibition, sale, or auction based on the results of a HPI inspection (e.g., during a proceeding class). However, we recognize that this proposed requirement is redundant with management’s responsibility to verify the identity of all horses entered in a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, and have therefore elected not to finalize this proposed change.

If an APHIS representative identifies a sore horse or other noncompliance during the course of an inspection, the APHIS representative will collect information from management and the person having immediate custody or control of the horse, including the name of the horse and owner and trainer information, for further review and potential enforcement action.

In proposed § 11.12(b), we included procedures that HPIs must follow while conducting inspections. These procedures help to ensure that HPIs can inspect the horse to determine whether the horse is in compliance with the Act or regulations. We required in proposed

90 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 92 of 150

§ 11.12(b)(1) that the HPI ensures that all tack except for a halter and lead rope is removed from the horse during inspection. This requirement is also included in proposed § 11.5(c).

Some commenters stated that this prohibition constitutes a safety issue, as the horse cannot be adequately restrained if it becomes unruly.

As we noted above in the discussion of proposed § 11.5(c), we are adopting the requirements as proposed. Horses that are preparing for competition can be reasonably expected to be well-trained and capable of standing still for the duration of the inspection. In the uncommon event of an unruly horse in the inspection area, the custodian will remain in close proximity to ensure a quick response.

In proposed § 11.12(b)(2) we required that during the preshow inspection, the HPI direct the custodian of the horse to lead, walk, and turn the horse in a figure-eight to allow the HPI to determine whether the horse exhibits a gait deficiency.

One commenter objected to our use of the phrase “gait deficiency” and requested that we amend it to “signs of soreness” as contained in the current regulations, as gait deficiencies can have many causes unrelated to soreness.

In response to this comment, we have retained the existing regulatory language in this final rule.

We included requirements in proposed § 11.12(b)(3) for proper manipulation of the hoof and limb of a horse during inspection. The digital palpation conducted throughout this process requires pressure against the hoof and limb sufficient to blanch, or whiten, the thumbnail of the inspecting HPI. The HPI will have to palpate the front limbs of the horse from knee to hoof, with particular emphasis on the fetlocks and pasterns. The HPI will also have to inspect the posterior surface of the pastern by picking up the hoof and examining the posterior (flexor)

91 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 93 of 150

surface. In addition, the HPI will have to digitally palpate the pocket (sulcus), including the

bulbs of the heel, and continue the palpation to the medial and lateral surfaces of the pastern.

During palpation of the hoof and limb, the HPI is required to watch for responses to pain in the

horse such as sudden movements. While continuing to hold the pastern, the HPI will have to

extend the hoof and limb of the horse to inspect the front (extensor) surfaces, including the

coronary band.

Many persons submitted comments regarding current and proposed horse inspection

procedures.

Several commenters opposing the rule expressed concern with what they referred to as

the imprecise and subjective nature of horse show inspections and made appeals for the

utilization of more scientific and objective inspection techniques. One commenter referred to the

inspection protocol as a “look and feel” procedure, noting that the knowledge and perception of

the individual inspector plays a role in each inspection. Another commenter stated that

inspection procedures are not based on any acceptable veterinary scientific principles and that

APHIS representatives ignore principles of veterinary science. Some commenters referenced

specific technologies that they would like to see be used to detect soring, including

thermography, blood tests, and swabs of a horse’s pastern area. The appeal of such methods, as

indicated by these commenters, is that they would provide more uniform inspections with less

potential for human error or bias. On the other hand, many veterinarians commenting on the rule

stated that soring chemicals or numbing agents applied to a horse’s limb cannot typically be

detected by a blood test alone, and a few recommended that blood tests, radiography, and other

objective methods be used to supplement a finding of soring through palpation rather than a replacement of it.

92 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 94 of 150

While advancements in technology are beneficial for many aspects of medicine and provide excellent diagnostic capabilities for a number of conditions, it remains the case that soring is primarily characterized by the presence of pain, and that palpation is the most accurate and effective method for detecting pain in veterinary medicine. 14 As evidenced in the training, practice, and expertise of modern veterinarians, palpation is the cornerstone of the veterinary physical exam. Moreover, the Secretary of Agriculture’s policy is that digital palpation is a highly reliable method to determine whether a horse is sore. The Secretary's reliance on palpation to determine whether a horse is sore is based upon the experience of a large number of veterinarians, many of whom have had 10 to 20 years of experience in examining many thousands of horses as part of their efforts to enforce the HPA. We agree that imaging, blood, and swab tests certainly could be used in conjunction with palpation and visual examination by licensed inspectors, as they have been used in the past to aid in detecting the presence of caustic chemicals and inflammation. Taken without palpation, diagnostic imaging or blood tests alone would likely miss critical evidence of soring in a horse.

Some degree of professional judgment is inherent in the inspection process. As some commenters noted, even a medical doctor who examines an x-ray must use his or her professional judgment to interpret the results. To ensure the most qualified individuals are performing inspections, we are limiting the initial HPI applicant pool to veterinarians, with the

14 “Valuable, modern diagnostic imaging techniques are no substitute for detailed visual inspection and thorough manual palpation of the limbs in weightbearing and nonweightbearing positions.” The Merck Veterinary Manual. (September 2015). "The Lameness Examination in Horses.” Retrieved from http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/musculoskeletal_system/lameness_in_horses/the_lamene ss_examination_in_horses.html

93 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 95 of 150

option of expanding that pool to include veterinary technicians and other qualified individuals with requisite educational and professional experience as outlined in this final rule.

Some commenters specifically objected to current USDA inspection methods on the grounds that the palpation done by inspectors is itself injurious to the horse. Other commenters stated USDA inspectors manipulate horses inappropriately and deliberately to produce pain.

One such commenter stated that while DQPs use soft and deep palpation as described by the Act,

USDA inspectors use fingernails, pull hair at the coronal band, and percuss the foot to make a horse move to disqualify certain horses that are not sore.

We disagree with commenters’ statements that USDA officials inspect horses inappropriately and note that proper palpation by USDA officials has never been shown to cause injury to a horse. The pressure applied to the horse’s limb during palpation is limited to pressure against the hoof and limb sufficient to blanch, or whiten, the thumbnail of the inspecting HPI, which is insufficient pressure to cause pain in a horse that is not sore. In addition, we further note that USDA inspectors do not disqualify horses from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned. Management has that authority under the HPA.

On the other hand, a few commenters cited a study indicating that the correct amount of palpation pressure indicated in proposed § 11.2(b)(3) (i.e., “pressure against the hoof and limb sufficient to blanch, or whiten, the thumbnail of the inspecting HPI”) is actually insufficient to produce a reaction in a sore horse. They noted that the amount of pressure specified in

§ 11.12(b)(3) is equivalent to 0.4-0.6 kg/cm2, which is likely to be inadequate to distinguish between horses that are sore and horses that are not sore. The commenters recommended that objective scientific data regarding digital palpation should be considered in developing inspection procedures.

94 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 96 of 150

Our knowledge and experience indicates that pressure against the hoof and limb sufficient to blanch, or whiten, the thumbnail of the inspecting HPI is sufficient to detect soring in sore horses. In fact, APHIS continues to find a high prevalence of horses that are sore in the

Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse industries when applying this arguably light amount of pressure to the pastern during the inspection process. We agree, however, that more scientific data regarding digital palpation can be useful in evaluating and refining current inspection procedures.

Another commenter stated that USDA inspectors selectively inspect the feet and legs of horses. The commenter states that USDA improperly checks horses by pushing on a bone in the back of the foot to induce pain and make them move. The commenter added that in instances of such inspections captured on video, a licensed medical veterinarian shows what the USDA did to the horse to induce pain, even though the horse was not previously sore. The commenter asked that USDA release all video it has of horse inspections.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. USDA inspectors have no reason to deliberately cause pain in horses and in fact are committed to ending the cruel and inhumane practice of soring horses. As we note above, palpation is a professionally accepted and highly reliable means of detecting pain in sore horses.

We noted in the proposed rule that the HPI shall also inspect the rear limbs of all horses exhibiting lesions or unusual movement of the rear limbs before or after showing, and may inspect a horse whenever he or she considers it necessary while the horse is on the show grounds.

While carrying out these procedures, the HPI will also have to inspect the horse to determine compliance with the scar rule. We also noted in the proposed rule that as part of the inspection,

95 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 97 of 150

the HPI may also use an x-ray machine or other technologies to detect evidence of soring

consistent with noncompliance with the Act or regulations.

In proposed § 11.12(b)(5), we proposed to require that the HPI instruct the custodian of

the horse to control it for inspection by holding the lead rope approximately 18 inches from the

halter. We noted in the proposed rule that horses that are not presented in a manner to allow

their proper inspection, as well as unruly or fractious horses, will be prohibited from showing,

and that the HPI must report all such incidents to management and APHIS.

One commenter opposed to the requirement in proposed paragraph (b)(5) stated that not

allowing a custodian to hold the lead rope closer than 18'' from the halter is inadequate for

controlling some horses and can create a dangerous situation.

We are making no changes in response to this comment. Horses that cannot be controlled

under this requirement may be too unruly to be inspected.

Another commenter stated that a horse could be unruly or factious but not sore, and that

APHIS lacks the authority to dismiss such horses.

Unruly and fractious horses in the inspection area present a risk to the safety of HPIs,

APHIS representatives, exhibitors, and other horses. In this final rule, we clarify that the HPI

shall not be required to inspect horses that are not presented in a manner to allow their proper

inspection, as well as unruly or fractious horses. The HPI shall report such incidents to

management, who can make a determination as to whether to allow the horse to be shown,

exhibited, sold, or auctioned, and to APHIS, for purposes of oversight and potential evidence

collection.

Paragraph (c) of proposed § 11.12 includes inspection logistics for HPIs. Paragraph

(c)(1) will require that in shows with more than 150 horses entered, an authorized HPI may

96 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 98 of 150

inspect horses 3 classes ahead of the time such horses are to be shown but only if another authorized HPI can provide continuous and uninterrupted supervision of the designated warm-up area for the inspected horses. In shows with 150 horses or fewer entered, one HPI may inspect horses 2 classes ahead of the time the inspected horses are to be shown but only if another authorized HPI can provide continuous and uninterrupted supervision of the designated warm-up area for the inspected horses.

One commenter stated that the provision allowing the HPI to inspect horses 2 classes ahead of time is dangerous to exhibitors. The commenter explained that that there would not be sufficient time for an exhibitor to replace the show pads, saddle, bridle and breast collar that would have to be removed during the inspection, that this leads to serious safety concerns in presenting a clean and sound horse safely, and that any fault would lie with APHIS.

We acknowledge the commenters’ concerns regarding inspection safety and share the same goal of ensuring that inspection procedures are safe and efficient. We proposed this requirement to ensure that the horse is in the same condition while being shown as when it was inspected by limiting the amount of time that a horse could be tampered with in the warm-up area. With respect to timing concerns, the current regulations state that a DQP in a show with greater than 150 horses entered should inspect horses no more than 3 classes ahead of the time the inspected horses are to be shown. For shows with fewer than 150 horses, the DQP should inspect horses no more than 2 classes ahead of the time the inspected horses are to be shown.

The proposed inspection procedures do not alter these stipulations significantly. Based on our experience and with proper oversight by management, there is sufficient time for exhibitors to prepare their horses between the inspection and show times.

97 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 99 of 150

The same commenter recommended that APHIS should encourage show managers to include in their liability clause that any injury or death resulting from the inspection process lies with APHIS.

Liability agreements between management and entrants are not within the purview of

APHIS.

We proposed a requirement in § 11.12(c)(2) that inspected horses be held in a designated warm-up area that is under observation by an authorized HPI or an APHIS representative.

Horses will not be permitted to leave the designated area before showing. Only a management representative, HPIs appointed and retained by management to conduct inspections, APHIS representatives, and up to three individuals accompanying the horse will be allowed in the designated area. As noted in proposed § 11.9(b)(3)(i), official guests of management, such as elected officials, legislators, and technical advisers will be allowed access to the inspection and warm-up areas for limited periods of time at the discretion of management and only with the concurrence of authorized APHIS representatives, if present.

One commenter stated that elected officials, legislators, and technical advisors pose no threat to inspectors and will not limit proper inspections, and requested that the requirement limiting such persons be removed from the proposal.

As we noted in the discussion of § 11.9(b)(3)(i), persons congregating in inspection areas can jeopardize their own safety, as well as the safety of custodians and inspectors, should a horse become unruly. Inspectors must have sufficient space to conduct inspections safely and without distraction.

Another commenter noted that proposed § 11.10(a)(2) requires management to ensure that no prohibited devices or substances are present in the warm-up area but that other parts of

98 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 100 of 150

the proposed regulations, such as § 11.12(c)(2), do not include management among those persons

who are allowed in the warm-up area.

As we noted in the discussion of § 11.10(a)(2) above, we are adding a “management”

representative to the list of persons allowed in the warm-up area.

We included in proposed § 11.12(d) requirements for additional inspection procedures that have been adapted from current § 11.21(d). We will allow the HPI to carry out additional

inspection procedures on a horse as he or she deems necessary to determine whether a horse is in

compliance with the Act and regulations. The HPI will be permitted to remove and inspect

plastic, cotton, or any materials wrapped around the limbs of any horse to determine whether any

prohibited substances are present, and may require that horseshoes be removed as part of the

inspection. Finally, the HPI will be authorized to use hooftesters on horses. We are adding these

provisions to the regulations, but note that they are nonsubstantive in nature as these inspection

methods are already provided for in the existing definition of inspection.

Requirements Concerning Persons Involved in Transportation of Certain Horses

(Proposed § 11.13, Final § 11.13).

We proposed moving the requirements in § 11.40 concerning persons involved in

transporting certain horses to proposed § 11.13 and removing § 11.40 from the regulations.

Under the proposed regulations, each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or

delivers or receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse may be shown,

exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction, will be required to

allow inspection of the horse at any show, exhibition, sale, or auction to determine compliance

with the Act and regulations. As proposed, each person would also be required to furnish to any

APHIS representative upon request the name and address (including street address or post office

99 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 101 of 150

box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and shipper, if different from the owner or trainer; name and address of the trainer; name and address of the carrier, the driver, and the means of conveyance; the origin and date of the shipment; and the destination. We also proposed to require the transporter to provide APHIS with the name and address of the horse’s farrier.

One commenter objected to the proposed transportation requirement on the grounds that an acquaintance or other such person who agrees to transport someone else’s horse to a small show is unlikely to know the name and address of that horse’s trainer, much less the farrier.

We note that this information requirement imposes no new requirement, as exhibitors and transporters are subject to the current regulations in § 11.40. However, we agree with the commenter with respect to the farrier’s information and are therefore removing that proposed requirement. We consider the impact of obtaining the name and address of the horse’s trainer before shipping a horse to be minimal. While reviewing this comment, we found that the proposed rule inadvertently omitted the existing requirement that each person subject to the provisions of this section must not only allow but also assist in the inspection of horses.

Therefore, we are retaining this language in this final rule.

Constitutionality and Legal Issues

In addition to comments on specific provisions in the proposed rule, we received numerous comments regarding constitutional and legal issues.

One commenter stated that the ban on action devices would have a deleterious effect on commerce due to economic effects on the industry and is thus outside the purview of the

Executive Branch's powers under the Constitution. Several other commenters stated that the Act was not intended to be an equine welfare law, but rather a commerce and consumer protection

100 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 102 of 150

law. In applying an intent of equine welfare to the proposed rule, the commenters state that

APHIS is changing the congressional intent of the Act itself, which APHIS does not have the authority to do.

The intent of this rulemaking is to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In Section 1822 of the Act, Congress found and declared that --“(1) the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane; (2) horses shown or exhibited which are sore, where such soreness improves the performance of such horse, compete unfairly with horses which are not sore; (3) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely affects and burdens interstate and foreign commerce; (4) all horses which are subject to regulation under the Act are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce; and (5) regulation under the Act by the Secretary is appropriate to prevent and eliminate burdens upon commerce and the effectively regulate commerce.” The proposed regulations wholly support the intent of the Act in all of these areas. We also note that the economic analysis for the proposed rule certifies that, if promulgated, the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Other commenters stated that the proposed rule would constitute a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment on the grounds that the value of Tennessee Walking Horses would be significantly reduced as a result of the rule, thus owing horse owners just compensation from the Federal government.

We disagree with the commenter that the rule constitutes a regulatory taking under the

Fifth Amendment. As discussed at length above, the prohibitions contained in this final rule on the use of pads, wedges, and certain action devices are necessary to prevent the soring of

Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses and eliminate the unfair competitive advantage

101 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 103 of 150

that sore horses have over horses that are not sore. While it would be harmful to some horses

currently on high pads to have their pads removed without a phasing-in period, this rule

specifically provides that this prohibition will not take effect until January 1, 2018, which is

almost a full year after publication of this final rule. As the Agency explained in a previous

rulemaking that sought to strengthen the prohibitions on pads, action devices, and other

equipment and devices, “APHIS veterinarians, and farriers and other members of the horse

industry, have indicated that horses can be moved without harm to pads 1 inch high or less, if the

change is done gradually. A gradual reduction in pad size will minimize physiological stress to

horses, and will allow horses who have had their feet trimmed in conjunction with the use of

pads to grow a naturally configured foot….”15 Additionally, the lengthy delay in implementing

this prohibition will allow horses to be reshod as necessary without damage to their hooves.

Experienced farriers have indicated to the Agency that a horse can be reshod every 6 to 8 weeks

without harm to the horse’s hooves. 16 Finally, the phasing-in period would also provide time for padded horses to be re-trained and compete in classes that do not allow the use of pads and wedges, which one commenter represented would be a 6 month process.

As discussed in the economic analysis accompanying this rule, only a small portion of the

Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse industries will be impacted by the changes made in

this final rule. APHIS personnel are aware of horses that formerly participated in padded classes

at HPA-covered events that had their pads removed and subsequently participated in classes that

did not allow pads.

15 53 FR 14780 (April 26, 1988). 16 53 FR 14780 (April 26, 1988).

102 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 104 of 150

One commenter representing a national equestrian organization expressed concern about the expansion in the proposed rule to include “related breeds” and stated that unless the proposed language prohibiting all pads and substances on “related breeds” is amended, the enforceability of the regulation is vulnerable to a court finding that the issuance of this rule is arbitrary and capricious and thus in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

As discussed above, we are clarifying in this final rule which breeds of horses are subject to the regulatory requirements.

Another commenter representing a national horse professional organization stated that the proposed rule exceeds the USDA’s statutory authority under the HPA. Along with citing language in existing regulations that identifies specific breeds, the commenter noted HPA findings that 1) horse soring is cruel and inhumane, and that 2) sore horses, when shown in events where soreness provides a competitive advantage, compete unfairly with horses which are not sore, to support this claim. The commenter took issue with the proposed rule’s “selective and arbitrary” exclusion of certain events – including events where speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades or trail rides – but not others, such as horse shows where a horse is shown at a trot. The commenter argued that the clear purpose of the HPA to eliminate the practice of soring must lead to the USDA’s targeting of enforcement efforts in only those events featuring breeds where soring is a concern.

We disagree with the commenter’s assertion that the proposed rule exceeds the USDA’s statutory authority under the HPA. As indicated in the proposed rule, the Act applies to any horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. The proposed definitions of “horse exhibition” and “horse show” that the commenter raises concerns about are unchanged from existing regulations, and this rule does not amend them.

103 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 105 of 150

One commenter asked APHIS to develop and implement a grievance process with an independent review and appeals board to give owners and trainers due process when there is a dispute arising from a subjective inspection. Several commenters stated that the USDA has ignored due process, adding that when the USDA takes information on and turns down a horse that the DQP has passed, the horse should be allowed to show until the matter is decided in court.

We note that while APHIS officials may inspect horses and notify management of its reasonable belief that a horse is sore or otherwise in noncompliance with the Act and regulations, it is management’s decision alone whether to disqualify or prohibit the horse from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned.

A commenter stated that inspections for soring are subjective and as support cited a Fifth

Circuit Court finding that inspections “are more art than science with a high incidence of false positives.”

The commenter is referring to the case Contender Farms, LLP v. USDA, in which the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against USDA’s attempts to require HIOs to impose mandatory penalties against alleged violators of the Act. The Secretary’s reliance on palpation to determine whether a horse is sore is based upon the experience of a large number of veterinarians, many of whom have had 10 to 20 years of experience in examining many thousands of horses as part of their efforts to enforce the HPA.

A few commenters representing national farm organizations stated that stakeholders would benefit from more information as to which events fall under the designation of interstate commerce for the purposes of the HPA. The commenters asked if events sponsored by youth horse clubs, or small shows which show only an occasional gaited breed, may be subject to inspections.

104 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 106 of 150

The requirements established under the HPA apply to horses that are either in interstate

or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce.

A commenter representing a national walking horse organization suggested that USDA

re-establish an external review committee to examine objective and impartial measures to

evaluate what could be done to improve procedures and report their findings and

recommendations to the USDA for action to improve the enforcement of the Act.

We appreciate the intent of this comment. Although this comment is outside the scope of

this rulemaking, we note that APHIS sought to improve enforcement of the Act and communication with the industry throughout this rulemaking process by soliciting written

comments on the proposed changes to the regulations, as well as verbal comments at numerous public meetings.

In a Federal Register notice published on September 22, 2016 (Docket No. APHIS-2011-

0009), we extended the comment period by 30 days and clarified a prohibition we proposed on

certain horseshoes.

One commenter opposed the clarification on grounds that it did more than clarify

§ 11.2(a)(3) but actually changed the substance of it to the detriment of the Tennessee Walking

Horse industry. The commenter stated that APHIS appears to have sidestepped several statutory

rulemaking requirements for the notice, including review by the White House Office of

Management and Budget. Given these issues, the commenter recommended that APHIS rescind

the proposed clarification and extend the comment period by another 30 days so that persons

have the opportunity to comment on it.

Many commenters raised specific concerns about the clarification. Based on those

concerns and other considerations, we will not be finalizing that proposed change and are

retaining the existing regulations on this matter.

105 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 107 of 150

Oversight and Enforcement

One commenter questioned whether APHIS would have the resources to enforce the proposed changes to the regulations. Another suggested that a third-party audit be conducted regularly to confirm whether the proposed changes are effective.

APHIS has the resources necessary to enforce the changes we are making to the regulations and to conduct ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the program.

One commenter stated that it would be both inefficient and ineffective for the USDA to duplicate efforts by allocating its already limited resources to the regulation of USEF competitions. Another commenter representing the USEF urged the USDA to amend the regulations to include an exception that would permit the USEF to continue to self-regulate its licensed and endorsed competitions and continue its ongoing partnership with the USEF.

We are making no changes to the regulations in response to this comment. The HPA covers all horses shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

One commenter noted that proposed regulations do not offer any sort of penalty structure for non-compliant horses and stated that such rules must be focused and well-defined prior to implementation of the final rule.

Penalties and other sanctions for violations are specified in § 1825 of the Act.

106 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 108 of 150

Other Comments

We received many comments on topics generally relating to the rule but not to specific provisions of it, including the following.

A number of commenters stated that the current regulations and DQP inspection structure are sufficient to prohibit soring.

We disagree with the commenters. The observations of APHIS officials inspecting horses at HPA-covered events, corroborated by the findings of the USDA OIG audit and the

USDA Judicial Officer, indicate that the current inspection program is inadequate to reduce instances of soring.

One commenter suggested that instead of educating "private" inspectors, APHIS should educate equestrians all over the nation by making literature available at equestrian events and establishing a reporting hotline.

APHIS maintains guides and other information about soring on the APHIS Horse

Protection Web site, as well as a Web form for any persons wishing to report welfare concerns.17

One commenter noted that there is no discussion in the proposed rule of how management will appoint and compensate HPIs. The commenter added that HIOs should not be allowed to manage or participate in the process.

Once a HPI candidate is trained and licensed by APHIS, management may appoint and retain any licensed HPI he or she chooses, along with any associated fee schedule for inspection services rendered.

17 Program information is available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_hpa/ct_hpa_program_information. The reporting form is at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/complaint- form.

107 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 109 of 150

Many commenters, including Members of Congress, asked that APHIS not extend the comment period for the rule, while others asked us to extend it.

We extended the comment period by 30 days to give stakeholders additional time to read the rule and submit comments.

A commenter stated that our statement in the proposed rule that 49 percent of DQP tickets were written at 6 percent of shows attended by APHIS is skewed because it fails to account for the number of entries at those shows and the fact that the majority of the percentage of DQP tickets were written and were found at the larger shows which have more entries and where USDA is more likely to attend.

We disagree with the commenter’s contention that these percentages are skewed. APHIS representatives have attended shows that did not allow the use of action devices, pads, and wedges with large numbers of entries and found no noncompliances with the HPA and regulations. On the other hand, APHIS has attended many smaller performance horse shows with classes that allowed the use of action devices, pads, and wedges, and found rates of detection involving sore horses or other noncompliances the same as or higher than those of large shows with classes that allowed the use of action devices, pads, and wedges.

One commenter stated that letters of warning issued to persons for alleged violations are included in the HPA violation statistics but are not actual violations. The commenter stated that only those cases found by USDA to be violations after due process and a hearing should be used in such statistics.

The commenter is correct in that letters of warning issued by the USDA are not a finding of a violation but rather are regulatory correspondence intended to notify a person of his or her regulatory responsibilities under the HPA to promote future compliance. APHIS provides

108 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 110 of 150

statistical information on its inspection activities, regulatory correspondence, and enforcement actions under the HPA to serve the public interest in the actions and functions of the Federal government and in compliance with applicable laws.

Several commenters stated that the Tennessee Walking Horse industry has a 96 percent or higher compliance rate with the Act and regulations.

We disagree with the commenters’ statements. This percentage is the result of DQPs conducting inspections that are inadequate in detecting soring. Based on APHIS inspection data, the compliance rate for padded horses competing in performance classes is under 70 percent, which is considerably lower than the percentage cited by the commenter.

One commenter suggested that APHIS file animal abuse charges in cases of soring.

Another commenter stated that horses failing inspection be taken to a rehabilitation center rather than to their home barns for further abuse.

The Act and regulations are enforced at the Federal level by USDA. Administrative enforcement, civil, and criminal proceedings initiated under the Act are conducted in accordance with applicable rules of procedure. The Act does not authorize APHIS to confiscate horses for failing an inspection. We note, though, that many local jurisdictions have animal cruelty laws that cover animal abuse.

Several commenters stated that the gaited horse industry should be given a greater role in developing the soring regulations. Many commenters opposed to the proposal stated that it fails to follow Congress' directive that the USDA work with the walking horse show industry on any changes to the regulations. One commenter stated that the Appropriations Committee had specifically directed APHIS to provide greater and more consistent transparency and to work more closely with stakeholders on rules and regulations.

109 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 111 of 150

In addition to reviewing the 130,975 comments that the Agency received and holding 5

public hearings on the proposed rule, we note that APHIS is continuously working to promote

transparency with and compliance among the regulated community. Among other initiatives,

APHIS recently published its new Animal Care Strategic Plan that outlines its two key goals for

2016-2020: Building relationships and promoting animal welfare.18 In addition, APHIS

continues to update and improve the content of its website and provide information on the

Agency’s efforts to promote compliance among regulated industries.

A few commenters stated horse owners of American Saddlebreds and other breeds

altering tails is a greater problem than soring.

The Act and regulations are specifically focused on the detection of horses with sore

limbs participating in shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

Several commenters made reference to the Bureau of Land Management’s advisory board

and voiced opposition to the euthanasia of wild horses in holding facilities.

This issue is outside the scope of the Act and its regulations.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are

adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the changes discussed in this document.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order

12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic analysis provides a

cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to

18 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/strategic_plan/AC-Strategic-Plan- 2016-2020_092716.pdf.

110 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 112 of 150

assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis also examines the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov

Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The Horse Protection Act (HPA) was passed in 1970 to eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of soring and the unfair competitive advantage that sore horses have over horses that are not sore. Although it has been more than 40 years since the HPA was enacted, substantial noncompliance continues to exist among Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at horse shows and other regulated events. Additionally, APHIS continues to observe that a relationship exists between the use of certain permitted items and soring in horses, such as the permitted use of action devices alone or in conjunction with prohibited substances. Also, USDA’s Office of

Inspector General (OIG) released an audit of APHIS’ enforcement of the HPA in 2010 that concluded the current inspection program, in which horse industry organizations or associations

(HIOs) train and license private inspectors to conduct compliance inspections at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, is not adequate to effectively enforce the Act and regulations.

The final rule is amending the horse protection regulations by removing all regulatory burdens and responsibilities from HIOs for the training and licensing of private inspectors

(referred to as designated qualified persons or DQPs) and establishing new requirements for the

111 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 113 of 150

training and licensing by APHIS of a new cadre of private inspectors, to be referred to as Horse

Protection Inspectors, or HPIs. The management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction may elect to appoint and retain a private inspector that meets the requirements established by

APHIS to detect and diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purposes of enforcing the HPA.

The OIG audit found inherent conflicts of interest between DQPs, the HIOs that license and hire them, and the management of the shows and exhibitions that contract with HIOs to provide DQPs. The OIG audit noted that at times DQPs fail to inspect horses adequately to determine compliance. According to APHIS inspection data for 2010 to 2015, of the horse shows where the DQPs and APHIS both conducted inspections, DQPs reported an average of one instance of noncompliance for every 90 inspections, while APHIS inspectors reported one instance of noncompliance for every 16 inspections, demonstrating the inefficacy of the existing

DQP system and underreporting of HPA noncompliance at covered events.

As noted above, APHIS will train and license HPIs. APHIS can deny an application for a

HPI license or revoke the license of a HPI who does not meet the minimum requirements, who fails to follow the designated inspection procedures, or who otherwise fails to carry out his or her duties and responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. Because HPIs will be licensed on an individual basis, management may hire HPIs directly or use an agent or organization, such as a horse industry organization or association, to assist them with that process.

The rule will also:

• Prohibit the use of pads and wedges on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking

horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions, except for therapeutic pads or

wedges.

112 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 114 of 150

• Prohibit the use of action devices (other than certain boots) and associated lubricants

on Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales,

and auctions.

• Amend existing access, space, and facility requirements for management of horse

shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.

• Amend management recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

• For shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions that elect to hire HPIs, ensure there is at

least one APHIS-licensed HPI present at shows with 150 or fewer horses entered and

two or more APHIS-licensed HPIs at shows with more than 150 horses entered.

• Require HPIs to be veterinarians or, if the Administrator determines that the pool of

HPIs comprised solely of veterinarians is too small, veterinary technicians or certain

government employees with responsibilities for enforcement of animal welfare laws

and experience with horses.

• Require management to have a farrier physically present to assist HPIs at horse

shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that allow Tennessee Walking Horses or

racking horses to participate in therapeutic pads and wedges if more than 150 horses

are entered, and have a farrier on call if 150 or fewer horses are entered.

• Remove from the regulations all provisions pertaining to HIOs, as they will no longer

be responsible for training and licensing DQPs.

Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses have a history of soring that conveys an unfair competitive advantage and are the focus of this rule.

The prohibitions on the use of pads, wedges, and action devices will not impose undue hardship on the management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions, or on the

113 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 115 of 150

participants of such events. Also, the minimum number of HPIs required to be present at shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that choose to employ APHIS-licensed HPIs—one if there are

150 or fewer horses entered and two or more if there are more than 150 horses entered—is the same as current DQP requirements and will result in no additional costs. HPIs will be required to be veterinarians or, if the Administrator determines that the pool of HPIs comprised solely of veterinarians is too small, veterinary technicians or certain government employees with responsibilities for enforcement of animal welfare laws and experience with horses. Based on estimates of an expert elicitation commissioned by APHIS, the cost of services provided per show by DQPs ranges from a few hundred to several thousand dollars and the most common cost is between $600 to $700 per show, which is well within the range of compensation for veterinarians. 19 The cost of services provided by HPIs will depend on the number hired and the length of the show or other HPA-covered event (e.g., multiday versus single-day shows).

Management may decide to hire more than the minimum number of HPIs required by regulation to ensure that inspections are accomplished in a timely manner.

Management will be required to have a farrier physically present at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions that allow Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses to participate using therapeutic pads and wedges if more than 150 horses are entered, and have a farrier on call if 150 or fewer horses are entered. APHIS is aware of horse shows that have routinely had farriers available during all performances and HIOs that suggest to their affiliates

19 Veterinarians who are hired as HPIs will act only in the capacity of a HPI, not as a veterinarian, and are expected to be paid accordingly. Assuming, arguendo, veterinarians serving as HPIs are paid based on veterinary wages, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage rate for veterinarians in the United States, for 2016 was about $42, well within the compensation range for persons who served as DQPs. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291131.htm

114 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 116 of 150

that a farrier be retained to ensure a successful show. Nevertheless, the management of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions may elect to not allow Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses to participate in therapeutic pads and wedges under this final rule, in which case no farrier would be required and there would be no additional costs. However, we assume for purposes of this analysis that management will allow such horses to participate and estimate the potential total annual costs to shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions with Tennessee Walking

Horses and racking horses for this farrier requirement may range from $10,000 to $50,000. This potential cost is the only additional cost we anticipate affected entities incurring to comply with this rule. The HPI and farrier costs may be passed along to participants or other show entities.

Many, if not most, of the entities that may be affected by this rule are small, but the impact is expected to be minor. The implementation will be delayed for one year.

The rule will enhance enforcement of the HPA as compared to the current DQP system.

APHIS will incur additional administrative costs associated with training and licensing HPIs, and assuring that they meet the high level of professional integrity and reputation needed to carry out the duties of an HPI. Consequently, APHIS will allocate resources to design, coordinate, and deliver training of HPIs, and provide program guidance and oversight.

In FY 2015, the USDA’s Horse Protection Program received $697,000 in appropriated funding. APHIS will implement the Program revisions and maintain this same level of funding through a reallocation of Program activities that cost approximately $300,000. APHIS anticipates a reduction in Program travel expenditures because APHIS would be able to focus its resources on providing oversight of licensed HPIs to address the inadequacies the OIG found with respect to the existing DQP program, instead of directly inspecting horses. USDA

115 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 117 of 150

personnel will continue to attend a percentage of horse events to ensure consistency among inspectors, address performance concerns, and assist in meeting the program’s goals.

The benefits of the rule are expected to justify the costs. The changes to the horse protection regulations will help to eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of soring horses and the unfair competitive advantage that sore horses have over horses that are not sore. The rule is not expected to adversely impact communities in which HPA-covered events are held because such events are expected to continue; owners are motivated to show their prized horses and will continue to participate in shows.

Therefore, due to the reasons summarized here and explained in the economic analysis accompanying this rule, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order

13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order

13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to- government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has assessed the impact of this rule on

Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications

116 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 118 of 150

that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

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 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), some of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule are approved under number 0579-0056. The new reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule were filed under 0579-0451 and have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take. Upon approval of this new information collection, 0579-0451, it will be merged into the existing 0579-0056.

117 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 119 of 150

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-

Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this final rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301) 851-2483.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 11

Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we are revising 9 CFR part 11 to read as follows:

PART 11--HORSE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Sec.

11.1 Definitions.

11.2 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors.

11.3 Scar rule.

11.4 Inspection and detention of horses.

11.5 Access to premises and records.

11.6 Inspection space and facility requirements.

11.7-11.8 [Reserved]

11.9 Responsibilities and liabilities of management.

11.10 Records required and disposition thereof.

11.11 Inspection of records.

11.12 Reporting by management.

118 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 120 of 150

11.13 Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation of certain horses.

11.14 Training and licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs).

11.15 Inspection procedures for HPIs.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1823-1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

§ 11.1 Definitions.

For the purpose of this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms

shall have the meanings assigned to them in this section. The singular form shall also impart the

plural and the masculine form shall also impart the feminine. Words of art undefined in the

following paragraphs shall have the meaning attributed to them by trade usage or general usage

as reflected by definition in a standard dictionary, such as “Webster's.”

Act means the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-540) as amended by the Horse

Protection Act Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-360), 15 U.S.C. 1821 et seq., and any

legislation amendatory thereof.

Action device means any boot, collar, chain, beads, bangles, roller, or other device which

encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg so as to cause friction, or which can

strike the hoof, coronet band, or fetlock joint.

Administrator means the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or

any person authorized to act for the Administrator. Mail for the Administrator should be sent to

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building B,

Mailstop 3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) means the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.

119 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 121 of 150

APHIS representative means any employee or official of APHIS.

Department means the United States Department of Agriculture.

Exhibitor means (1) any person who enters any horse, any person who allows his horse to

be entered, or any person who directs or allows any horse in his custody or under his direction,

control or supervision to be entered in any horse show or exhibition; (2) any person who shows

or exhibits any horse, any person who allows his horse to be shown or exhibited, or any person

who directs or allows any horse in his custody or under his direction, control, or supervision to

be shown or exhibited in any horse show or exhibition; (3) any person who enters or presents any

horse for sale or auction, any person who allows his horse to be entered or presented for sale or

auction, or any person who allows any horse in his custody or under his direction, control, or

supervision to be entered or presented for sale or auction in any horse sale or auction; or (4) any

person who sells or auctions any horse, any person who allows his horse to be sold or auctioned,

or any person who directs or allows any horse in his custody or under his direction, control, or

supervision to be sold or auctioned.

Horse means any member of the species Equus caballus.

Horse exhibition means a public display of any horses, singly or in groups, but not in

competition. The term does not include events where speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades, or trail rides.

Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) means a person meeting the requirements specified in

§ 11.14 whom the Administrator has licensed as an HPI. The management of any horse show,

exhibition, sale, or auction under section 1823 of the Act may appoint and retain a HPI to detect

and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses and any records pertaining to

such horses for the purposes of enforcing the Act.

120 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 122 of 150

Horse sale or auction means any event, public or private, at which horses are sold or auctioned, regardless of whether or not the horses are exhibited prior to or during the sale or auction.

Horse show means a public display of any horses, in competition, except events where speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades, or trail rides.

Inspection means any visual, physical, and diagnostic means approved by APHIS to determine compliance with the Act and regulations. Such inspection may include, but is not limited to, visual inspection of a horse and records, physical inspection of a horse, including touching, rubbing, palpating, and observation of vital signs, and the use of any diagnostic device or instrument, and may require the removal of any shoe, pad, action device, or any other equipment, substance, or paraphernalia from the horse when deemed necessary by the person conducting such inspection.

Management means any person who organizes, exercises control over, or administers or is responsible for organizing, directing, or administering any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and specifically includes, but is not limited to, the sponsoring organization and show manager.

Person means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, organization, joint stock company, State or local government agency, or other legal entity.

Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture or anyone who has heretofore or may hereafter be delegated authority to act in his stead.

Show manager means the person who has been delegated primary authority by a sponsoring organization for managing a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

121 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 123 of 150

Sore when used to describe a horse means:

(1) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person

to any limb of a horse,

(2) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse,

(3) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used on

any limb of a horse, or

(4) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a

person has engaged in a practice involving a horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction,

injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical

pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except

that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in

connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person

licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was given.

Sponsoring organization means any person or entity under whose immediate auspices and

responsibility a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is conducted.

State means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific

Islands.

§ 11.2 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors.

(a) General prohibitions. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section,

no device, method, practice, or substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any horse

122 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 124 of 150

show, exhibition, sale, or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.

(b) Specific prohibitions for all horses. The use of the following devices, equipment, or practices on any horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is prohibited:

(1) More than one action device on any one limb of a horse.

(2)(i) Boots, collars, or any other devices, with protrusions or swellings, or rigid, rough, or sharp edges, seams or any other abrasive or abusive surface that may contact a horse's leg; and

(ii) Boots, collars, or any other devices that weigh more than 6 ounces, except for soft rubber or soft leather bell boots and quarter boots that are used as protective devices.

(3) Pads or other devices on horses up to 2 years old that elevate or change the angle of such horses' hooves in excess of 1 inch at the heel.

(4) Any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, and any horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old that weighs more than 16 ounces.

(5) Artificial extension of the toe length, whether accomplished with pads, acrylics or any other material or combinations thereof, that exceeds 50 percent of the natural hoof length, as measured from the coronet band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of the hoof wall, to the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the toe. The artificial extension shall be measured from the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the toe at a 90 degree angle to the proximal (foot/hoof) surface of the shoe.

(6) Toe length that does not exceed the height of the heel by 1 inch or more. The length of the toe shall be measured from the coronet band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of the hoof wall to the ground. The heel shall be measured from the coronet band, at the most lateral portion of the rear pastern, at a 90 degree angle to the ground, not including normal

123 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 125 of 150

caulks at the rear of a horseshoe that do not exceed 3⁄4 inch in length. That portion of caulk at

the rear of a horseshoe in excess of 3⁄4 of an inch shall be added to the height of the heel in

determining the heel/toe ratio.

(7) Pads that are not made of leather, plastic, or a similar pliant material.

(8) Any object or material inserted between the pad and the hoof other than acceptable

hoof packing, which includes pine tar, oakum, live rubber, sponge rubber, silicone, commercial

hoof packing or other substances used to maintain adequate frog pressure or sole consistency.

Acrylic and other hardening substances are prohibited as hoof packing.

(9) Single or double rocker-bars on the bottom surface of horseshoes which extend more

than 11⁄2 inches back from the point of the toe, or which would cause, or could reasonably be

expected to cause, an unsteadiness of stance in the horse with resulting muscle and tendon strain

due to the horse’s weight and balance being focused upon a small fulcrum point.1

(10) Metal hoof bands, such as used to anchor or strengthen pads and shoes, placed less than 1⁄2 inch below the coronet band.

(11) Metal hoof bands that can be easily and quickly loosened or tightened by hand, by means such as, but not limited to, a wing-nut or similar fastener.

(12) Any action device or any other device that strikes the coronet band of the foot of a

horse except for soft rubber or soft leather bell boots that are used as protective devices.

(13) Shoeing a horse, trimming a horse's hoof, or paring the frog or sole in a manner that

will cause such horse to suffer, or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to suffer pain

1 This prohibition is not intended to disallow corrective devices, such as Memphis bars which consist of a metal bar(s) crossing from the ground surface of one side of the horseshoe to the ground surface of the other side of the horseshoe, and the purpose of which is to correct a lameness or pathological condition of the foot: Provided, That such metal bar(s) do not act as a single fulcrum point so as to affect the balance of the horse.

124 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 126 of 150

or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. Bruising of

the hoof or any other method of pressuring shoeing is also prohibited.

(14) Lead or other weights attached to the outside of the hoof wall, the outside surface of

the horseshoe, or any portion of the pad except the bottom surface within the horseshoe. Pads

may not be hollowed out for the purpose of inserting or affixing weights, and weights may not

extend below the bearing surface of the shoe. Hollow shoes or artificial extensions filled with

mercury or similar substances are prohibited.

(c) Specific prohibitions for horses other than Tennessee Walking Horses and racking

horses. The use of any of the following devices, equipment, or practices on any horse, other than

Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, is

prohibited:

(1) All beads, bangles, rollers, and similar devices, with the exception of rollers made of

lignum vitae (hardwood), aluminum, or stainless steel, with individual rollers of uniform size,

weight and configuration, provided each such device may not weigh more than 6 ounces,

including the weight of the fastener.

(2) Chains weighing more than 6 ounces each, including the weight of the fastener.

(3) Chains with links that are not of uniform size, weight and configuration; and, chains

that have twisted links or double links.

(4) Chains that have drop links on any horse that is being ridden, worked on a lead, or otherwise worked out or moved about.

(5) Chains or lignum vitae, stainless steel, or aluminum rollers which are not smooth and free of protrusions, projections, rust, corrosion, or rough or sharp edges.

125 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 127 of 150

(d) Specific prohibitions for Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. (1) All action devices, except for boots that meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, are prohibited on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

(2) All pads and wedges on Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction before January 1, 2018, are prohibited unless they meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. All pads and wedges are prohibited on any

Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction on or after January 1, 2018, unless such horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic, veterinary treatment using pads or wedges. The use of any such pads or wedges on a horse receiving therapeutic treatment must be prescribed by and/or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine, and must:

(i) Be necessary for the treatment of a specific disease or injury that has not responded to other appropriate treatments in accordance with established veterinary medical practice and procedures,

(ii) Be specifically designed and prescribed (for example, as to the height, weight, and material of a therapeutic pad) for the treatment of the horse’s disease or injury, and

(iii) Be discontinued at the conclusion of the treatment period ordered by the prescribing or supervising veterinarian.

(3) All substances are prohibited on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee

Walking Horse or racking horse while being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale, or otherwise present on the grounds at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

126 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 128 of 150

(e) Competition restrictions—2 Year-Old Horses. Horse show or horse exhibition workouts or performances of 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses and working exhibitions of 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses (horses eligible to be shown or exhibited in 2-year-old classes) at horse sales or horse auctions that exceed a total of 10 minutes continuous workout or performance without a minimum 5-minute rest period between the first such 10-minute period and the second such 10-minute period, and, more than two such 10-minute periods per performance, class, or workout are prohibited.

(f) Information requirements—horse related. Failing to provide information or providing any false or misleading information required by the Act or regulations or requested by

Department representatives, by any person that enters, owns, trains, shows, exhibits, or sells or has custody of, or direction or control over any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned or entered for the purpose of being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is prohibited. Such information shall include, but is not limited to:

Information concerning the name, any applicable registration name and number, markings, sex, age, and legal ownership of the horse; the name and address of the horse's training and/or stabling facilities; the name and address of the owner, trainer, rider, any other exhibitor, or other legal entity bearing responsibility for the horse; the class in which the horse is entered or shown; the exhibitor identification number; and, any other information reasonably related to the identification, ownership, control, direction, or supervision of any such horse.

127 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 129 of 150

§ 11.3 Scar rule.

The scar rule applies to all horses born on or after October 1, 1975. Horses subject to this

rule that do not meet the following scar rule criteria shall be considered to be “sore” and are

subject to all prohibitions of section 5 of the Act. The scar rule criteria are as follows:

(a) The anterior and anterior-lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor surface) must

be free of bilateral granulomas, 2 other bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and other

bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of soring including, but not limited to, excessive loss of

hair.

(b) The posterior surfaces of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or

“pocket” may show bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free

of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other evidence of inflammation.

§ 11.4 Inspection and detention of horses.

For the purpose of effective enforcement of the Act:

(a) Each horse owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, shall

allow any APHIS representative to reasonably inspect such horse at all reasonable times and

places the APHIS representative may designate. Such inspections may be required of any horse

which is stabled, loaded on a trailer, being prepared for show, exhibition, or sale or auction,

being exercised or otherwise on the grounds of, or present at, any horse show, horse exhibition,

or horse sale or auction, whether or not such horse has or has not been shown, exhibited, or sold

or auctioned, or has or has not been entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited or

2 Granuloma is defined as any one of a rather large group of fairly distinctive focal lesions that are formed as a result of inflammatory reactions caused by biological, chemical, or physical agents.

128 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 130 of 150

offered for sale or auction at any such horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.

APHIS representatives will not generally or routinely delay or interrupt actual individual classes

or performances at horse shows, horse exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions for the purpose of

examining horses, but they may do so in extraordinary situations, such as but not limited to, lack

of proper facilities for inspection, refusal of management to cooperate with Department

inspection efforts, reason to believe that failure to immediately perform inspection may result in

the loss, removal, or masking of any evidence of a violation of the Act or the regulations, or a

request by management that such inspections be performed by an APHIS representative.

(b) When any APHIS representative notifies the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person

having custody of or responsibility for a horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale

or auction that APHIS desires to inspect such horse, it shall not be moved from the horse show,

horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction until such inspection has been completed and the horse

has been released by an APHIS representative.

(c) For the purpose of examination, testing, or taking of evidence, APHIS representatives

may detain for a period not to exceed 24 hours any horse, at any horse show, horse exhibition, or

horse sale or auction, which is sore or which an APHIS veterinarian has probable cause to

believe is sore. Such detained horse may be marked for identification and any such identifying

markings shall not be removed by any person other than an APHIS representative.

(d) Detained horses shall be kept under the supervision of an APHIS representative or secured under an official USDA seal or seals in a horse stall, horse trailer, or other facility to

which access shall be limited. It shall be the policy of APHIS to have at least one representative

present in the immediate detention area when a horse is being held in detention. The official

129 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 131 of 150

USDA seal or seals may not be broken or removed by any person other than an APHIS

representative, unless:

(1) The life or well-being of the detained horse is immediately endangered by fire, flood,

windstorm, or other dire circumstances that are beyond human control.

(2) The detained horse is in need of such immediate veterinary attention that its life may

be in peril before an APHIS representative can be located.

(3) The horse has been detained for a maximum 24-hour detention period, and an APHIS

representative is not available to release the horse.

(e) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of or responsibility for

any horse detained by APHIS for further examination, testing, or the taking of evidence shall be allowed to feed, water, and provide other normal custodial and maintenance care, such as walking, grooming, etc., for such detained horse: Provided, That:

(1) Such feeding, watering, and other normal custodial and maintenance care of the

detained horse is rendered under the direct supervision of an APHIS representative.

(2) Any non-emergency veterinary care of the detained horse requiring the use,

application, or injection of any drugs or other medication for therapeutic or other purposes is

rendered by a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in the presence of an APHIS representative and,

the identity and dosage of the drug or other medication used, applied, or injected and its purpose

is furnished in writing to the APHIS representative prior to such use, application, or injection by

the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine attending the horse. The use, application, or injection of such

drug or other medication must be approved by the APHIS representative.

(f) It shall be the policy of APHIS to inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person

having immediate custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation of

130 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 132 of 150

the Act or the regulations of such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released by

an APHIS representative.

(g) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or

responsibility for any horse or horses that an APHIS representative determines shall be detained

for examination, testing, or taking of evidence pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section shall be

informed after such determination is made and shall allow said horse to be immediately put

under the supervisory custody of APHIS or secured under official USDA seal as provided in

paragraph (d) of this section until the completion of such examination, testing, or gathering of

evidence, or until the 24-hour detention period expires.

(h) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for

any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or regulations, and who has been notified

of such alleged violation by an APHIS representative as stated in paragraph (f) of this section,

may request re-inspection and testing of said horse within a 24-hour period: Provided, That:

(1) Such request is made to an APHIS representative immediately after the horse has been inspected by the APHIS representative and before such horse has been removed from the

inspection facilities; and

(2) An APHIS representative determines that sufficient cause for re-inspection and

testing exists; and

(3) The horse is maintained under APHIS supervisory custody as prescribed in paragraph

(d) of this section until such re-inspection and testing has been completed.

(i) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or responsibility for

any horse being inspected shall render such assistance as the APHIS representative may request

for purposes of such inspection.

131 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 133 of 150

§ 11.5 Access to premises and records.

(a) Management. (1) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale

or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS

representatives with unlimited access to the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds,

offices, and all other areas of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction,

including any adjacent areas under their direction, control, or supervision for the purpose of

inspecting any horses, or any records required to be kept by regulation or otherwise maintained.

(2) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall,

without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives with an

adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of horses while such

horses are competitively or otherwise performing at any horse show or horse exhibition, or while

such horses are being sold or auctioned or offered for sale or auction at any horse sale or horse

auction.

(b) Exhibitors. (1) Each horse owner, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or

responsibility for any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall,

without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS representative to all

areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show,

exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or related areas at any horse show, horse exhibition, or

horse sale or auction, for the purpose of inspecting any such horse at any and all reasonable

times.

(2) Each owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall promptly present his horse for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any APHIS representatives that

132 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 134 of 150

said horse has been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations. No tack other than a halter and lead rope may be on the horse during inspection.

(c) No person shall assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with APHIS representatives or in any way influence attendees of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to

do the same.

§ 11.6 Inspection space and facility requirements.

(a) The management of every horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction shall provide,

without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, sufficient space and facilities for APHIS

representatives to carry out their duties under the Act and regulations when requested to do so by

APHIS representatives, whether or not management has received prior notification or otherwise

knows that such show, exhibition, sale, or auction may be inspected by APHIS. With respect to

such space and facilities, it shall be the responsibility of management to provide at least the

following:

(1) Sufficient space in a convenient location to the horse show, exhibition, sale, or

auction arena, acceptable to APHIS representatives, in which horses may be physically,

thermographically, or otherwise inspected.

(2) Protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, windstorm, etc.

(3) A means to control crowds or onlookers in order that APHIS representatives may

carry out their duties safely and without interference.

(4) An accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical power source, if electrical

service is available at the show, exhibition, sale, or auction site and is requested by an APHIS

representative.

133 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 135 of 150

(5) Appropriate areas adjacent to the inspection area for designated horses to wait before

and after inspection, and an area to be used for detention of horses.

(b) A management representative, HPIs appointed and retained by management to

conduct inspections, and APHIS representatives are allowed in the warm-up and inspection area.

Each horse in the designated warm-up area may be accompanied by no more than three

individuals, including the person having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse, the

trainer, and the rider. Each horse in the inspection area may only be accompanied by the person

having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse. Official guests of management,

such as elected officials, legislators, and technical advisors may be allowed access to the warm-

up area and inspection area for limited periods of time at the discretion of management and only

with the concurrence of an APHIS representative, if present. No other persons are allowed in the

warm-up or inspection areas.

§ 11.7-11.8 [Reserved]

§ 11.9 Responsibilities and liabilities of management.

(a) Horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions at which the management does not

appoint and retain HPIs. The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction which

does not appoint and retain a HPI shall be responsible for identifying all horses that are sore or

otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations, and shall disqualify or prohibit any horses which

are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations from participating or competing in any

horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Horses entered for sale or auction at a horse sale or

horse auction must be inspected and, as appropriate, identified as sore or otherwise in violation

of the Act or regulations prior to the sale or auction and, as required by law, prohibited from

entering the sale or auction ring. Sore horses or horses otherwise in violation of the Act or

134 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 136 of 150

regulations that have been entered in a horse show or horse exhibition for the purpose of show or exhibition must be identified and disqualified prior to the show or exhibition. Any horses found to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations during actual participation in the show or exhibition, must be removed from further participation immediately (e.g., prior to the horse placing in the class or the completion of the exhibition). All horses that placed first, second, or third in each Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse class or event at any horse show or horse exhibition shall be inspected after being shown or exhibited to determine if such horses are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations.

(b) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, and horse sales and auctions at which the management appoints and retains HPIs. (1) The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that appoints and retains HPIs shall accord said HPIs access to all records and areas of the grounds of such show, exhibition, sale, or auction and the same right to inspect horses and records as is accorded to any APHIS representative under this section. Further, management shall not take any action which will interfere with or influence the HPIs in carrying out his or her duties.

(2) The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that appoints and retains a HPI to inspect horses shall appoint and retain at least two HPIs when more than 150 horses are entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Management that allows

Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses to use pads or wedges in accordance with

§ 11.2(d)(2) shall have at least one farrier physically present if more than 150 horses are entered in the event. If 150 or fewer horses are entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction the management shall, at minimum, have a farrier on call and in the local area to come to the show, if requested by an APHIS representative or HPI.

135 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 137 of 150

(3) After a HPI has completed inspection, management must prevent tampering with any part of a horse's limbs or hooves in such a way that could cause a horse to be sore.

(4) If management is dissatisfied with the performance of a particular HPI, management should promptly notify, in writing, the Administrator as to why management believes the performance of the HPI was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. Management that appoints and retains HPIs shall immediately disqualify or prohibit from showing, exhibition, sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse identified by the HPI to be sore or otherwise allegedly in violation of the Act or regulations and any horse otherwise known by management to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations.

(c) At horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions involving Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of any such horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction must:

(1) Ensure that no devices or substances prohibited under § 11.2 are present in the warm- up area.

(2) Review the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction and disallow the participation of any such person in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, for the duration of the period of disqualification.

(3) Verify the identity of all horses entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Acceptable methods of identification are as follows:

(i) A description sufficient to identify the horse, including, but not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present (e.g., brands, tattoos, cowlicks, or blemishes); or

(ii) Electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/11785; or

136 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 138 of 150

(iii) An equine passport issued by a State government and accepted in the government of the State in which the horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction will occur.

§ 11.10 Records required and disposition thereof.

(a) Records required and disposition thereof. The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses shall maintain for a period of at least 90 days following the closing date of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction all pertinent records containing:

(1) The dates and place of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

(2) The name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code) of the sponsoring organization.

(3) The name and address of the horse show, exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction management.

(4) The name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code) of any HPI appointed and retained by management to conduct inspections.

(5) The name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code) of each show judge.

(6) A copy of each class or sale sheet containing the names of horses, the registration number of the horse (if applicable), the names and addresses (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of horse owners, the exhibitor number and class number, or sale number assigned to each horse, the show class or sale lot number, and the name and address

(including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person paying the entry fee and entering the horse in a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction.

137 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 139 of 150

(7) A copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction program, if any such program has been prepared.

(8) The name and any applicable registration name and number of each horse, as well as the name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the owner, the trainer, the person who had immediate custody of the horse, and the location

(including street address and ZIP Code) of the home barn or other facility where the horse is stabled.

(b) The management of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction containing

Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses shall designate a person to maintain the records required in this section.

(c) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction that includes Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses shall furnish to any APHIS representative, upon request, the name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code) of the person designated by the sponsoring organization or manager to maintain the records required by this section. Management must provide this information within 30 days of the request.

§ 11.11 Inspection of records.

The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction shall permit any APHIS representative, upon request, to examine and make copies of any and all records pertaining to any horse that are required in the regulations or otherwise maintained during business hours or such other times as may be mutually agreed upon. A room, table, or other facilities necessary for proper examination and copying of such records shall be made available to the APHIS representative.

138 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 140 of 150

§ 11.12 Reporting by management.

(a) At least 30 days before any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction containing

Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses is scheduled to begin, the management of any such horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction must notify the Administrator of the event by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email.3 Such notification must include:

(1) The name and location of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction;

(2) The name, address, phone number (and email address, if available) of the manager;

(3) The date or dates of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction;

(4) A copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction program, if any such program has been prepared; and

(5) The name(s) of the APHIS-licensed HPIs scheduled to perform inspections at the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, should management choose to appoint and retain HPIs.

(b) Within 30 days following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses the management of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the Administrator the information required by

§ 11.10(a) of this section and a report listing the name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action. If no horses are disqualified, the management shall submit a report so stating.

(c) Within 30 days following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction which does not include Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, the management

3 Email notification may be sent to [email protected].

139 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 141 of 150

of such show, exhibition, sale or auction shall inform the Administrator of any case where a horse was prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be sore or otherwise noncompliant with the Act or regulations.

§ 11.13 Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation of certain horses.

Each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or delivers or receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse may be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, shall allow and assist in the inspection of such horse at any such horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to determine compliance with the Act and regulations and shall furnish to any authorized HPI or APHIS representative upon his or her request the following information:

(a) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and of the shipper, if different from the owner or trainer;

(b) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse trainer;

(c) Name and address (including street address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the carrier transporting the horse, and of the driver of the means of conveyance used;

(d) Origin of the shipment and date thereof; and

(e) Destination of shipment.

§ 11.14 Training and licensing of Horse Protection Inspectors (HPIs).

APHIS will train and license HPIs on an individual basis. The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction may appoint and retain HPIs holding a valid, current license to detect and diagnose horses that are sore or to otherwise inspect horses and any records pertaining

140 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 142 of 150

to such horses for the purposes of enforcing the Act. A current list of licensed HPIs, including names and contact information, is available on the APHIS Web site.

(a) Basic qualifications of HPI applicants. Persons licensed as HPIs shall be

veterinarians. If there is an insufficient pool of veterinarians that are licensed as HPIs as

determined by the Administrator, APHIS may also train and license veterinary technicians and

persons employed by State and local government agencies to enforce laws or regulations

pertaining to animal welfare. The required qualifications of each are as follows:

(1) Veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and persons employed by State and local

government agencies to enforce laws or regulations pertaining to animal welfare must have

extensive knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science, defined as understanding

the anatomy, selection, breeding, care, and maintenance of horses, and applicable principles of

equine science, welfare, care, and health, and be eligible to be licensed as HPIs under paragraph

(b) of this section. They also must be knowledgeable in the areas of equine soring and soring

practices.

(2) Veterinarians must have a degree awarded from a veterinary school accredited by the

American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Council on Education, or have a

certificate issued by the AVMA’s Education Commission for Foreign Veterinary Graduates, or

have received equivalent formal education as determined by the Administrator. Veterinary

technicians must have a degree awarded by an educational program accredited by the AVMA’s

Committee on Veterinary Technician Education and Activities.

(b) Additional restrictions on HPI licensing. (1) APHIS will not license any person as an

HPI if that person has been convicted or found to have violated any provision of the Act or the

regulations in this part occurring after July 13, 1976, or has been assessed any fine or civil

141 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 143 of 150

penalty, or has been the subject of a disqualification order in any proceeding involving an alleged

violation of the Act or regulations occurring after July 13, 1976.

(2) APHIS will not license any person as an HPI if that person, any member of that

person’s immediate family, or that person’s employer participates in the showing, exhibition,

sale, or auction of horses or acts as a judge or farrier, or is an agent of management.

(3) APHIS will not license any person as an HPI if that person has been disqualified by

the Secretary from performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act.

(4) APHIS will not license any person as an HPI if the honesty, professional integrity,

reputation, practices, and reliability of the person do not support a conclusion that the applicant

is fit to carry out the duties of an HPI. In making this conclusion, the Administrator shall review

all available information about the applicant and shall consider:

(i) Criminal conviction records, if any, indicating that the person may lack the honesty,

integrity, and reliability to appropriately and effectively perform HPI duties;

(ii) Official records of the person's actions while participating in Federal, State, or local

veterinary programs when those actions reflect on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and

reliability of the person;

(iii) Judicial determinations in any type of litigation adversely reflecting on the honesty,

reputation, integrity, and reliability of the person; and

(iv) Any other evidence reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of

the person.

(c) Licensing of HPIs. (1) All persons wishing to become HPIs must submit an

application to the Administrator. Applicants will be required to show that they satisfy the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. HPI applicants selected as candidates will

142 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 144 of 150

complete a formal training program administered by APHIS. This training program will include

instruction on:

(i) The anatomy and physiology of the limbs of a horse;

(ii) The Act and the regulations in this part;

(iii) The history of soring, the physical inspection procedures necessary to detect and

diagnose soring, and related subjects;

(iv) Practical instruction using live horses;

(v) HPI standards of conduct; and

(vi) Recordkeeping requirements and procedures.

(2) After an HPI candidate successfully completes the formal training program in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section and passes a written examination, a license will be granted to that

candidate for 1 year. Licenses terminate after 1 year and all HPIs must submit a new application

each year if they wish to be considered for licensing for another year.

(d) Requirements to be met by HPIs. (1) Any licensed HPI appointed by the management

of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to inspect horses for the purpose of detecting and

diagnosing horses which are sore and to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of enforcing the

Act and regulations shall collect and maintain the following information and records concerning

any horse which he or she finds to be sore or otherwise noncompliant with the Act or regulations:

(i) The name and address, including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code, of the event and the manager;

(ii) The name and address, including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code, of the horse owner;

143 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 145 of 150

(iii) The name and address, including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code, of the horse trainer;

(iv) The name and address, including street address or post office box number, and ZIP

Code, of the horse exhibitor;

(v) The exhibitor’s number and class number, or the sale or auction tag number of the horse;

(vi) The date and time of the inspection;

(vii) A detailed description of all of the HPI’s findings and the nature of the noncompliance, or other reason for notifying management of inspection findings involving a horse, including said HPI’s statement regarding the evidence and facts upon which management’s decision to disqualify or prohibit said horse was based;

(viii) The name and any applicable registered name and number (if the horse is registered), age, sex, color, and markings of the horse; and

(ix) The name or names of the manager or other management representative notified by the HPI of horses that he or she found sore or otherwise noncompliant with the Act or regulations.

(2) Copies of the records required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall be submitted by the HPI to APHIS and management within 72 hours after the conclusion of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

(3) After completing an inspection, the HPI shall inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility of any horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or regulations of such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released by the HPI.

144 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 146 of 150

(4) The HPI shall immediately notify management of any horse which, in the HPI’s opinion, is allegedly in violation of the Act or regulations.

(e) Denial and revocation of HPI license. APHIS will deny or revoke a license for any of the reasons outlined in paragraph (b) of this section, and will revoke the license of any HPI who fails to follow the inspection procedures set forth in this part, or who otherwise carries out his or her duties and responsibilities in a less than satisfactory manner. Upon denial or revocation of a license, the applicant or HPI may appeal the denial or revocation to the Administrator within 30 days from the date of such decision, and the Administrator shall make a final determination in the matter. If the Administrator upholds the denial or revocation of the license, the applicant or

HPI shall be given notice and opportunity for a hearing. Hearings will be in accordance with the

Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR 1.130 through 1.151. The license denial shall remain in effect until the final decision has been rendered.

(f) Inspectors licensed prior to January 1, 2018. Inspectors licensed as Designated

Qualified Persons (DQPs) prior to January 1, 2018, shall not be appointed and retained by management to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or otherwise inspect horses for compliance with the HPA and regulations after the effective date. DQPs and other persons seeking to become inspectors after January 1, 2018, must apply for a license and fulfill all HPI eligibility requirements included in this section.

§ 11.15 Inspection procedures for HPIs.

(a) Required inspections. (1) The HPI shall physically inspect the following horses in accordance with the inspection procedures provided for in this section for the purpose of determining whether horses are sore or otherwise not in compliance with the Act:

(i) All Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses entered for sale or auction;

145 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 147 of 150

(ii) All Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses entered in any animated gait class

(whether under saddle, horse to cart, or otherwise);

(iii) All Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses before they are admitted to be shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned; and

(iv) All Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses that place first, second, or third in their class or event at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.

(2) The HPI shall observe horses warming up and during actual performances whenever possible, and shall inspect any horse at any time he or she deems necessary to determine whether any such horse shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned is compliant with the Act or regulations.

The HPI shall examine any horse which the HPI determines, at any time, should be examined for compliance with the Act and regulations.

(3) The HPI shall immediately notify management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, of any horse which, in the HPI’s opinion, is sore or otherwise not in compliance with the

Act or regulations. Such report shall be made before the show class or exhibition involving the horse has begun or before the horse is offered for sale or auction.

(4) Horses dismissed from the show arena, whether by a judge, steward, or custodian of the horse, must be taken directly to the inspection area for follow-up inspection by the HPI.

Horses that suffer serious illness or injury while performing and determined by the HPI to require immediate veterinary treatment are not required to return to the inspection area at that time.

(b) Inspection procedures. (1) During the preshow inspection, the HPI shall direct the person having immediate custody of the horse to walk and turn the horse in a manner that allows

146 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 148 of 150

the HPI to determine whether the horse exhibits signs of soreness. The HPI shall determine whether the horse moves in a free and easy manner and is free of any signs of soreness.

(2) The HPI shall instruct the custodian of the horse to control it by holding the lead rope approximately 18 inches from the halter. The HPI shall not be required to inspect a horse if it is presented in a manner that might cause the horse not to respond to an HPI's inspection, if there is any tack on the horse except for a halter, or if whips, cigarette smoke, or other actions or paraphernalia are used to distract a horse during inspection. The HPI shall not be required to inspect horses that are not presented in a manner to allow their proper inspection, as well as unruly or fractious horses. The HPI shall report such incidents to management and APHIS.

(3) The HPI shall digitally palpate the front limbs of the horse from knee to hoof, with particular emphasis on the pasterns and fetlocks. Digital palpation must be of a pressure sufficient to blanch, or whiten, the thumbnail of the inspecting HPI. The HPI shall inspect the posterior surface of the pastern by picking up the hoof and examining the posterior (flexor) surface. The HPI shall apply digital pressure to the pocket (sulcus), including the bulbs of the heel, and continue the palpation to the medial and lateral surfaces of the pastern, being careful to observe for responses to pain in the horse. While continuing to hold onto the pastern, the HPI shall extend the hoof and limb of the horse to inspect the front (extensor) surfaces, including the coronary band. The HPI may inspect the rear limbs of all horses inspected after showing, and may inspect the rear limbs of any horse inspected preshow or on the show grounds when he deems it necessary, except that the HPI shall inspect the rear limbs of all horses exhibiting lesions on, or unusual movement of, the rear limbs. While carrying out the procedures set forth in this paragraph, the HPI shall also inspect the horse to determine whether it is compliant with

147 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 149 of 150

the scar rule in § 11.3, and particularly whether there is any evidence of inflammation, edema,

proliferating granuloma tissue, or other evidence of abuse.

(4) The HPI shall observe and inspect the horse for compliance with the provisions set

forth in § 11.2(a) through (d). All devices, pads, and other equipment shall be inspected to

assess whether they are in compliance with the regulations.

(c) Inspection logistics. (1) In shows in which 150 horses or more are entered, a HPI

appointed and retained by management may inspect horses three classes ahead of the time such

horses are to be shown but only if another HPI can provide continuous and uninterrupted

supervision of the designated warm-up area for the inspected horses; otherwise, the HPI may

inspect horses up to two classes ahead of the time such horses are to be shown. In shows in

which fewer than 150 horses are entered, the HPI may inspect horses up to two classes ahead of

the time the inspected horses are to be shown.

(2) Inspected horses shall be held in a designated area that is under observation by a HPI.

Horses shall not be permitted to leave the designated warm-up area before showing.

148 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 150 of 150

(d) Additional inspection procedures. The HPI may carry out additional inspection

procedures as he deems necessary to determine whether the horse is sore or otherwise not in

compliance with the Act or regulations. The HPI may inspect and remove plastic, cotton, or any

materials wrapped around the limbs of any horse at a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to

determine whether any prohibited substance is present. Finally, the HPI would be authorized to

use hooftesters on horses.

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of January 2017.

David Howard,

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

149 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 150

EXHIBIT B Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 9 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 10 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 11 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 12 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 13 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 14 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 15 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 16 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 17 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 18 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 19 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 20 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 21 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 22 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 23 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 24 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 25 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 26 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 27 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 28 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 29 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 30 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 31 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 32 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 33 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 34 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 35 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 36 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 37 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 38 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 39 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 40 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 41 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 42 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 43 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 44 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 45 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 46 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 47 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 48 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 49 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 50 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 51 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 52 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 53 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 54 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 55 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 56 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 57 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 58 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 59 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 60 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 61 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 62 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 63 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 64 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 65 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 66 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 67 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 68 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 69 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 70 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 71 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 72 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 73 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 74 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 75 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 76 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 77 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 78 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 79 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 80 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 81 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 82 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 83 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 84 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 85 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 86 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 87 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 88 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 89 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 90 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 91 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 92 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 93 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 94 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 95 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 96 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 97 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 98 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 99 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 100 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 101 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 102 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 103 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 104 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 105 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 106 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 107 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 108 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 109 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 110 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 111 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 112 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 113 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 114 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 115 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 116 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 117 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 118 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 119 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 120 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 121 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 122 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 123 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 124 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 125 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 126 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 127 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 128 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 129 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 130 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 131 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 132 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 133 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 134 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 135 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 136 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 137 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 138 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 139 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 140 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 141 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 142 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 143 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 144 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 145 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 146 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 147 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 148 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 149 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-2 Filed 08/13/19 Page 150 of 150 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-3 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT C Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-3 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 3

Document title: USDA Announces Changes Aimed at Ending the Inhumane Practice of Horse Soring Capture URL: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/bulletins/180514d Capture timestamp (UTC): Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:25:11 GMT Page 1 of 2 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-3 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 3

Document title: USDA Announces Changes Aimed at Ending the Inhumane Practice of Horse Soring Capture URL: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDAAPHIS/bulletins/180514d Capture timestamp (UTC): Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:25:11 GMT Page 2 of 2 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-4 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT D Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-4 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2 United States Animal and Policy and Program Development Department of Plant Health Regulatory Analysis and Development Agriculture Inspection 4700 River Road Unit 118 Service Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Oliver Potts, Director Office of the Federal Register (F) The National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001

Dear Mr. Potts:

Please withdraw from publication Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009, "Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and Other Amendments,” RIN 0579-AE19, which is currently on public inspection and scheduled to publish in the Federal Register on January 24, 2017.

If you need to speak with us concerning this docket, please contact our Federal Register liaison, Charisse Cleare, at 301-851-2037. You may also call me at 301-851-3072 (direct) or 301­851-3175 (main number for the office).

Sincerely,

Steve O’Neill Chief Regulatory Analysis and Development

Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-5 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT E Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-5 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

Document title: USDA APHIS | USDA Announces Changes Aimed at Ending the Inhumane Practice of Horse Soring Capture URL: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/stakeholder-info/sa_by_date/sa-2017/sa-01/hpa-rule Capture timestamp (UTC): Fri, 09 Aug 2019 20:32:37 GMT Page 1 of 1 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT F Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-6 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 8 Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-7 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 (Rev. 6/17 DC) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Humane Society of the United States, et al. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Office of the Federal Register, Sonny Perdue, Kevin Shea, and Oliver Potts.

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF ______11001 COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT ______11001 (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED (c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN) Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 202-637-2200

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY! PTF DFT PTF DFT o 1 U.S. Government o 3 Federal Question Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of this State o 1 o 1 Incorporated or Principal Place o 4 o 4 of Business in This State o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity o o Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place o 5 o 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of of Business in Another State Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject of a o 3 o 3 Foreign Country Foreign Nation o 6 o 6

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit) o A. Antitrust o B. Personal Injury/ o C. Administrative Agency o D. Temporary Restraining Malpractice Review Order/Preliminary Injunction 410 Antitrust 310 Airplane 151 Medicare Act 315 Airplane Product Liability Any nature of suit from any category Social Security 320 Assault, Libel & Slander may be selected for this category of 861 HIA (1395ff) 330 Federal Employers Liability case assignment. 862 Black Lung (923) 340 Marine 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 345 Marine Product Liability *(If Antitrust, then A governs)* 864 SSID Title XVI 350 Motor Vehicle 865 RSI (405(g)) 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability Other Statutes 360 Other Personal Injury 891 Agricultural Acts 362 Medical Malpractice 893 Environmental Matters 365 Product Liability 890 Other Statutory Actions (If 367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical Administrative Agency is Personal Injury Product Liability Involved) 368 Asbestos Product Liability

o E. General Civil (Other) OR o F. Pro Se General Civil Real Property Bankruptcy Federal Tax Suits 462 Naturalization 210 Land Condemnation 422 Appeal 27 USC 158 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or Application 220 Foreclosure 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant) 465 Other Immigration 230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC Actions 240 Torts to Land Prisoner Petitions 7609 470 Racketeer Influenced 535 Death Penalty 245 Tort Product Liability & Corrupt Organization 540 Mandamus & Other Forfeiture/Penalty 290 All Other Real Property 480 Consumer Credit 550 Civil Rights 625 Drug Related Seizure of 490 Cable/Satellite TV 555 Prison Conditions Property 21 USC 881 Personal Property 850 Securities/Commodities/ 370 Other Fraud 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions 690 Other Exchange 371 Truth in Lending of Confinement Other Statutes 896 Arbitration 380 Other Personal Property 375 False Claims Act 899 Administrative Procedure Damage Property Rights 376 Qui Tam (31 USC Act/Review or Appeal of 385 Property Damage 820 Copyrights 3729(a)) Agency Decision Product Liability 830 Patent 835 Patent – Abbreviated New 400 State Reapportionment 950 Constitutionality of State Drug Application 430 Banks & Banking Statutes 840 Trademark 450 Commerce/ICC 890 Other Statutory Actions Rates/etc. (if not administrative agency 460 Deportation review or Privacy Act) Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-7 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

o G. Habeas Corpus/ o H. Employment o I. FOIA/Privacy Act o J. Student Loan 2255 Discrimination

530 Habeas Corpus – General 442 Civil Rights – Employment 895 Freedom of Information Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted 510 Motion/Vacate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, 890 Other Statutory Actions Student Loan 463 Habeas Corpus – Alien national origin, (if Privacy Act) (excluding veterans) Detainee discrimination, disability, age, religion, retaliation)

*(If pro se, select this deck)* *(If pro se, select this deck)* o K. Labor/ERISA o L. Other Civil Rights o M. Contract o N. Three-Judge (non-employment) (non-employment) Court 110 Insurance 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights 120 Marine 441 Civil Rights – Voting 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Act) 740 Labor Railway Act 443 Housing/Accommodations 140 Negotiable Instrument 751 Family and Medical 440 Other Civil Rights 150 Recovery of Overpayment Leave Act 445 Americans w/Disabilities – & Enforcement of 790 Other Labor Litigation Employment Judgment 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act 446 Americans w/Disabilities – 153 Recovery of Overpayment Other of Veteran’s Benefits 448 Education 160 Stockholder’s Suits 190 Other Contracts 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

V. ORIGIN o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to o 8 Multi-district Proceeding from State from Appellate or Reopened from another Litigation District Judge Litigation – Court Court district (specify) from Mag. Direct File Judge

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.) The case arises under APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, 553, 701 -706, FRA, 44 U.S.C. § 1503, and HPA, 15 U.S.C. 1821 et seq.

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND $ Check YES only if demanded in complaint COMPLAINT ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: YES NO ✘

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instruction) YES NO ✘ If yes, please complete related case form IF ANY

DATE: ______Aug. 13, 2019 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD ______/s/Claudia M.______O'Brien

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.

I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction under Section II.

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding nature of suit found under the category of the case.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form. Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-8 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-8 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-9 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 4700 River Rd. Riverdale, MD 20737

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-9 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-10 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Office of the Federal Register 8601 Adelphi Rd. College Park, MD 20740

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-10 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-11 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Sonny Perdue,Secretary United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-11 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-12 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Kevin Shea, Administrator Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 4700 River Rd. Riverdale, MD 20737

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-12 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-13 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Oliver Potts, Director Office of the Federal Register 8601 Adelphi Rd. College Park, MD 20740

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-13 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-14 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV William Barr U.S. Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20530

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-14 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-15 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 2

$2 5HY'& 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857 IRUWKH District of Columbia BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al.,

3ODLQWLII V

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.

'HIHQGDQW V

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV Civil-Process Clerk United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 555 Fourth Street NW Washington, DC 20530

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RX QRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW ²RUGD\VLI\RX DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY 3 D  RU  ²\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\ ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH Claudia M. O'Brien Latham & Watkins LLP 555 Eleventh Street, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

$1*(/$'&$(6$5&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH 6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN Case 1:19-cv-02458 Document 1-15 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2

$2 5HY 6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ 3DJH &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

7KLVVXPPRQVIRU QDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\ ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ  GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODW  SODFH RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWK QDPH DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQ QDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRI QDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\  

0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI0.00 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH 6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF