Handling of Animals; Contingency Plans, 63085-63090 [E8-25289]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DHS proposes to amend
Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS
AND INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for part 5
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat.
2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 301.
Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.
Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Add at the end of Appendix C to
Part 5, Exemption of Record Systems
under the Privacy Act, the following
new paragraph ‘‘12’’:
Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of
Records Exempt From the Privacy Act
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
12. The Department of Homeland Security
General Legal Records system of records
consists of electronic and paper records and
will be used by DHS and its components.
General Legal Records is a repository of
information held by DHS in connection with
its several and varied missions and functions,
including, but not limited to: The
enforcement of civil and criminal laws;
investigations, inquiries, and proceedings
thereunder; national security and intelligence
activities; and protection of the President of
the United States or other individuals
pursuant to Section 3056 and 3056A of Title
18. General Legal Records contains
information that is collected by, on behalf of,
in support of, or in cooperation with DHS
and its components and may contain
personally identifiable information collected
by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign,
or international government agencies.
Pursuant to exemption 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) of
the Privacy Act, portions of this system are
exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d);
(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
(e)(4)(I), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f), and (g). Pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1),(2),(3) and (5) this
system is exempt from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the
limitations set forth in those subsections: 5
U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G),
(e)(4)(H), (I), and (f). Exemptions from these
particular subsections are justified, on a caseby-case basis to be determined at the time a
request is made, for the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4)
(Accounting for Disclosures) because release
of the accounting of disclosures could alert
the subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation to the existence of the investigation,
and reveal investigative interest on the part
of DHS as well as the recipient agency.
Disclosure of the accounting would therefore
present a serious impediment to law
enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve
national security. Disclosure of the
accounting would also permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the
investigation, to tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension, which would undermine the
entire investigative process.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records)
because access to the records contained in
this system of records could inform the
subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation, to the existence of the
investigation, and reveal investigative
interest on the part of DHS or another agency.
Access to the records could permit the
individual who is the subject of a record to
impede the investigation, to tamper with
witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection
or apprehension. Amendment of the records
could interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities and would
impose an impossible administrative burden
by requiring investigations to be
continuously reinvestigated. In addition,
permitting access and amendment to such
information could disclose security-sensitive
information that could be detrimental to
homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and
Necessity of Information) because in the
course of investigations into potential
violations of Federal law, the accuracy of
information obtained or introduced
occasionally may be unclear or the
information may not be strictly relevant or
necessary to a specific investigation. In the
interests of effective law enforcement, it is
appropriate to retain all information that may
aid in establishing patterns of unlawful
activity.
(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of
Information from Individuals) because
requiring that information be collected from
the subject of an investigation would alert the
subject to the nature or existence of an
investigation, thereby interfering with the
related investigation and law enforcement
activities.
(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to
Subjects) because providing such detailed
information would impede law enforcement
in that it could compromise investigations
by: Revealing the existence of an otherwise
confidential investigation and thereby
provide an opportunity for the subject of an
investigation to conceal evidence, alter
patterns of behavior, or take other actions
that could thwart investigative efforts; reveal
the identity of witnesses in investigations,
thereby providing an opportunity for the
subjects of the investigations or others to
harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere
with the collection of evidence or other
information from such witnesses; or reveal
the identity of confidential informants,
which would negatively affect the
informant’s usefulness in any ongoing or
future investigations and discourage
members of the public from cooperating as
confidential informants in any future
investigations.
(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I)
(Agency Requirements), and (f) (Agency
Rules) because portions of this system are
exempt from the individual access provisions
of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above,
and therefore DHS is not required to establish
requirements, rules, or procedures with
respect to such access. Providing notice to
individuals with respect to existence of
records pertaining to them in the system of
records or otherwise setting up procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63085
pursuant to which individuals may access
and view records pertaining to themselves in
the system would undermine investigative
efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses,
and potential witnesses, and confidential
informants.
(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of
Information) because in the collection of
information for law enforcement purposes it
is impossible to determine in advance what
information is accurate, relevant, timely, and
complete. Compliance with (e)(5) would
preclude DHS agents from using their
investigative training and exercise of good
judgment to both conduct and report on
investigations.
(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on
Individuals) because compliance would
interfere with DHS’ ability to obtain, serve,
and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law
enforcement mechanisms that may be filed
under seal, and could result in disclosure of
investigative techniques, procedures, and
evidence.
(i) From subsection (g) to the extent that
the system is exempt from other specific
subsections of the Privacy Act relating to
individuals’ rights to access and amend their
records contained in the system. Therefore
DHS is not required to establish rules or
procedures pursuant to which individuals
may seek a civil remedy for the agency’s:
Refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply
with a request for access to records; failure
to maintain accurate, relevant timely and
complete records; or failure to otherwise
comply with an individual’s right to access
or amend records.
Dated: October 14, 2008.
Hugo Teufel III,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E8–24997 Filed 10–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0159]
RIN 0579–AC69
Handling of Animals; Contingency
Plans
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend
the Animal Welfare Act regulations to
add requirements for contingency
planning and training of personnel by
research facilities and by dealers,
exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and
carriers. We are proposing these
requirements because we believe all
licensees and registrants should develop
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
63086
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
a contingency plan for all animals
regulated under the Animal Welfare Act
in an effort to better prepare for
potential disasters. This action would
heighten the awareness of licensees and
registrants regarding their
responsibilities and help ensure a
timely and appropriate response should
an emergency or disaster occur.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before December
22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2006-0159 to submit or view comments
and to view supporting and related
materials available electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send two copies of your comment
to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0159,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0159.
Reading Room: You may read any
comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading
room is located in room 1141 of the
USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Jodie Kulpa-Eddy, Staff Veterinarian,
Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301)
734–7833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
(7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to promulgate
standards and other requirements
governing the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of certain
animals by dealers, research facilities,
exhibitors, operators of auction sales,
carriers, and intermediate handlers.
Regulations established under the AWA
are contained in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1 and
2, and 9 CFR part 3 contains standards
for the humane handling, care,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
treatment, and transportation of animals
covered by the AWA. Part 3 consists of
subparts A through E, which contain
specific standards for dogs and cats,
guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits,
nonhuman primates, and marine
mammals, respectively, and subpart F,
which sets forth general standards for
warmblooded animals not otherwise
specified.
The only requirement for contingency
planning by licensees and registrants
currently in the regulations is located in
§ 3.101(b), which covers water and
power supply requirements at facilities
housing marine mammals. Specifically,
this section requires facilities to submit
written contingency plans to the Deputy
Administrator of Animal Care (AC)
regarding emergency sources of water
and electric power should primary
sources fail. Among other things, the
plans must include evacuation plans in
the event of a disaster and a description
of backup systems and/or arrangements
for relocating marine mammals
requiring artificially cooled or heated
water.
Following the events experienced
during the 2005 hurricane season, a
Federal document, ‘‘The Federal
Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned,’’
which can be found on the Internet at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/reports/
katrina-lessons-learned/, was published
that highlighted the need for planning to
minimize the impact of disasters. AC’s
experience indicates that, although
contingency planning would benefit the
health and welfare of animals covered
by the AWA, at least some entities
responsible for regulated animals have
not undertaken such planning.
Therefore, we believe all licensees and
registrants should be required to
develop a contingency plan for all
animals regulated under the AWA in an
effort to better prepare for potential
disasters. We are proposing to add
requirements for contingency plans, and
training of personnel regarding their
roles and responsibilities, to a new
§ 2.38(l) for research facilities and to a
new § 2.134 for dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers. For
marine mammal facilities, these
proposed requirements would be in
addition to the requirements of
§ 3.101(b) mentioned above.
The regulations in current § 2.38(i)
allow a person or premises to be
designated as a recognized animal site
for holding animals in lieu of a research
facility, if the research facility obtains
prior approval of the AC Regional
Director. Likewise, the regulations in
§ 2.102 allow a person or premises to be
designated as a recognized animal site
for holding animals in lieu of a dealer,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
exhibitor, or intermediate handler if the
dealer, exhibitor, or intermediate
handler obtains prior approval of the AC
Regional Director. We would also
amend these provisions to require that
any site so designated either be directly
included in the contingency plan of the
research facility, dealer, exhibitor, or
intermediate handler or develop its own
contingency plan in accordance with
the regulations for research facilities,
dealers, exhibitors, or intermediate
handlers.
Due to the fact that the individual
circumstances for facilities may be
different (e.g., holding exotic animals
versus pet animals, being situated in a
State with a cold climate versus a
temperate climate, etc.), it is difficult to
go into specific detail as to what
elements must be included in all
contingency plans. However, we are
proposing a set of general criteria to
which contingency plans would have to
adhere. These criteria would require
licensees and registrants to develop
contingency plans that:
• Identify situations the facility might
experience that would trigger the need
for a contingency plan, including
emergencies such as electrical outages,
faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the
facility is most likely to experience.
Listings of areas most at risk for specific
natural disasters can be found on the
U.S. Geological Survey Web site at
https://www.usgs.gov/hazards or on the
Weather Channel Web site at https://
www.weather.com/ready/
?from=secondarynav.
• Outline specific tasks required to be
carried out in response to the identified
emergencies including, but not limited
to, detailed animal evacuation
instructions or shelter-in-place
instructions and provisions for
providing backup sources of food and
water as well as sanitation, ventilation,
bedding, veterinary care, etc.
• Identify a chain of command and
who (by name or by position title) will
be responsible for fulfilling these tasks.
• Address how response and recovery
will be handled in terms of materials,
resources, and training needed.
We are also considering the
development of a guidance document
(or other means) to provide examples of
elements that may be included in
contingency plans. We welcome public
comment on Web sites, articles, or other
sources that may be used to develop
such guidance, in addition to
suggestions as to what elements should
be included as examples for an adequate
contingency plan. We would retain the
specific requirements in § 3.101(b) that
are applicable to marine mammals.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
We are further proposing that the
plans be made available to APHIS upon
request and, in the case of research
facilities, to any funding Federal agency
representatives. Contingency plans
would have to be in place 180 days after
any final rule following this proposal
became effective and would have to be
reviewed by the research facility, dealer,
exhibitor, intermediate handler, or
carrier on at least an annual basis.
Training of personnel would have to
take place within 60 days following the
adoption of a contingency plan by the
research facility, dealer, exhibitor,
intermediate handler, or carrier.
Employees hired within 30 days or less
after adoption of the contingency plan
would be included in the training
period taking place within 60 days
following adoption of the contingency
plan. For employees hired more than 30
days after adoption of the contingency
plan, training would have to be
conducted within 30 days of their start
date. Training of personnel could be
developed and offered by the research
facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate
handler, or carrier or provided by an
outside entity.
Each research facility, dealer,
exhibitor, intermediate handler, or
carrier would be expected to review its
contingency plan on at least an annual
basis to ensure their plan adequately
addresses the four criteria listed above.
For licensees and registrants who travel
with animals or have multiple sites
where animals are maintained, their
contingency plans would have to
address potential hazards for all areas
where the animals are maintained for
regulated purposes. Any changes to a
contingency plan resulting from the
annual review would have to be
communicated to employees through
training, which would have to be
conducted within 30 days of making the
changes. The plan would also be
reviewed by APHIS personnel as a part
of the routine inspection process
(similar to the process for our review of
dog exercise and nonhuman primate
environment enhancement plans).
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12866. This 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.
For this proposed rule, we have
prepared an economic analysis, which
is summarized below. The analysis
includes an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis that considers the potential
economic effects of the proposed rule on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
small entities as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and a costbenefit analysis as required by
Executive Order 12866. The full
economic analysis may be viewed on
the Regulations.gov Web site or in our
reading room (see ADDRESSES above for
instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov). The full analysis may
also be obtained from the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Lack of disaster preparedness can
leave businesses and organizations and
the animals in their care vulnerable, as
was the case in the southern United
States in 2005. The devastating impact
of the 2005 hurricane season, in
particular the many animals that were
stranded and died in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, underscores the need
for contingency planning for all animals
covered under the Animal Welfare Act.
Regulated animal populations, in
addition to non-regulated animal
populations, suffered as a result of the
hurricane. In one particular instance, 90
percent of the animals left in a facility
after personnel were evacuated either
died or had to be humanely euthanized.
In 2004, USDA’s Animal Care
reported 1,101,958 animals, including
dogs, cats, guinea pigs, nonhuman
primates, hamsters, and rabbits, were
used by registered research facilities
(https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_
welfare/publications_and_
reports.shtml). This does not include
regulated animals in zoos and other
types of facilities. This high number of
animals used by research facilities
illustrates the need for contingency
plans to protect animals and mitigate
impacts of natural and manmade
disasters.
Currently, only facilities that house
marine mammals are required under the
regulations to develop contingency
plans. The proposed rule would require
that all licensees and registrants, of
which there are more than 10,000,
develop and document contingency
plans for all other animals covered
under the Act. In addition, training and
familiarization with these plans would
have to be provided to all facility
employees.
The proposed requirements may affect
research facilities, dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers that
fall into nine categories of the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS). For the purposes of
this analysis, the potentially affected
entities are classified within the
following industries: All Other Animal
Production (NAICS 112990), Pet and Pet
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63087
Supplies Stores (NAICS 453910),1
Schedule Freight Transport (NAICS
48112), Research and Development in
Physical Engineering and Life Sciences
(NAICS 541710), Veterinary Services
(NAICS 541940), Zoos and Botanical
Gardens (NAICS 712130), Nature Park
and Other Similar Institutions (NAICS
712190), Environment Conservation and
Wildlife Organizations (NAICS 813312),
and Pet Care Services (NAICS 812910).
Data are unavailable on the size of the
specific entities, but we may assume
that the majority of the establishments
that would be affected by the rule are
small, based on the industry estimates
obtained from the Economic Census and
the Census of Agriculture.
In terms of economic impacts, we
anticipate that the proposed changes
would only impose minimal costs to
develop and document the contingency
plans and provide employee training.
This is because the cost of training for
facility personnel is expected to vary
depending on the type and size of
business and many of the larger
facilities, in particular, already have
contingency plans in place. In addition,
there is a wealth of information
available from various Federal and State
agencies and private organizations that
addresses animal disaster planning. A
list of resources that may aid in the
development and implementation of
contingency plans is included in the full
economic analysis.
We do not have any estimates of the
costs of implementing contingency
plans for facilities that do not already
have contingency plans in place, such
as the costs of equipment or materials
that may be needed. We welcome public
comment on the types of equipment or
materials that may be needed to
implement contingency plans and the
costs of this equipment or materials.
Significant Alternatives to the Rule
One alternative to the rule would be
to require that all licensees and
registrants submit their contingency
plans to APHIS for review, as is
required for the marine mammal
facilities. There are more than 10,000
licensees and registrants that would be
submitting plans for review under this
alternative, which we expect would take
an enormous amount of resources for
the Agency to process, review, and
store. Another alternative would be to
retain the status quo, i.e., not amend the
regulations to require regulated entities
other than marine mammal facilities to
prepare contingency plans. However,
we believe that this alternative would
1 Businesses are included in this category if they
deal in exotic pets such as primates.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
63088
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
not provide adequate protection for the
general public and the animals in these
facilities. Thus, the approach we are
proposing in this document, which
would ensure that contingency plans are
developed and can be reviewed by
APHIS during scheduled inspection
visits or at other times, is preferred.
Summary
Preparedness for disasters can reduce
harm caused to animals and loss of life.
The devastating impact of the 2005
hurricane season underscores the need
for contingency planning for all animals
covered under the Animal Welfare Act.
Currently, only facilities that house
marine mammals are required under 9
CFR 3.101 to develop contingency
plans. The proposed rule would require
that all licensees and registrants develop
and document contingency plans for all
other animals covered under the Act. In
addition, training and familiarization
with these plans would be provided to
all facility employees. The licensees and
registrants fall into various categories of
the North American Industry
Classification System and while no
economic data are available on business
size for the specific entities, we may
assume the majority of the
establishments are small, based on the
industry estimates obtained from the
Economic Census and the Census of
Agriculture. In terms of economic
impacts, we anticipate that the proposed
rule would only impose minimal costs
to develop and document the
contingency plans and provide
employee training. The cost of training
for facility personnel is expected to vary
depending on the type and size of
business. Many of the larger facilities, in
particular, already have contingency
plans in place. Overall, we do not
anticipate a substantial economic
impact on the entities affected.
Nevertheless, APHIS welcomes public
comment on the proposed rule’s
possible impacts, including the cost of
implementing contingency plans.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part
3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to
have retroactive effect. This rule would
not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
present an irreconcilable conflict with
this rule. 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.), the information
collection or recordkeeping
requirements included in this proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Please send written comments
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC
20503. Please state that your comments
refer to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0159.
Please send a copy of your comments to:
(1) Docket No. APHIS–2006–0159,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer,
OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250. A comment to
OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication of this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would amend the
current regulations and would require
all licensees and registrants, which
include research facilities, dealers,
exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and
carriers, to develop and document
contingency plans for the handling of
animals during all emergencies or
disasters.
These criteria would require licensees
and registrants to develop contingency
plans that:
• Identify situations the facility might
experience that would trigger the need
for a contingency plan, including
emergencies such as electrical outages,
faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the
facility is most likely to experience.
• Outline specific tasks required to be
carried out in response to the identified
emergencies or disasters including, but
not limited to, detailed animal
evacuation instructions or shelter-inplace instructions and provisions for
providing backup sources of food and
water as well as sanitation, ventilation,
bedding, veterinary care, etc.
• Identify a chain of command and
who (by name or by position title) will
be responsible for fulfilling these tasks.
• Address how response and recovery
will be handled in terms of materials,
resources, and training needed.
We are further proposing that the
plans be made available to APHIS upon
request and, in the case of research
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
facilities, to any funding Federal agency
representatives. Contingency plans
would have to be in place 180 days after
any final rule following this proposal
became effective and would have to be
reviewed by the research facility, dealer,
exhibitor, intermediate handler, or
carrier on at least an annual basis.
We are soliciting comments from the
public (as well as affected agencies)
concerning our proposed information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements. These comments will
help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
information collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our agency’s
functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
information collection on those who are
to respond (such as through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated at 4 to 6 hours (average 5
hours) per response.
Respondents: Dealers, exhibitors,
research facilities, carriers and
intermediate handlers.
Estimated annual number of
respondents: 10,351.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated annual number of
responses: 10,351.
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 51,755 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours
may not equal the product of the annual
number of responses multiplied by the
reporting burden per response.)
Copies of this information collection
can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
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:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
E-Government Act compliance related
to this proposed rule, please contact
Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’
Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301) 851–2908.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 2
Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9
CFR part 2 as follows:
PART 2—REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.7.
2. Section 2.38 is amended by adding
new paragraphs (i)(4) and (l) to read as
follows:
§ 2.38
Miscellaneous.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(4) The other person or premises must
either be directly included in the
research facility’s contingency plan
required under paragraph (l) of this
section or must develop its own
contingency plan in accordance with
paragraph (l) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Contingency planning. (1) Research
facilities must develop, document, and
follow an appropriate plan to provide
for the humane handling, treatment,
transportation, housing, and care of
their animals in the event of an
emergency or disaster (one which could
reasonably be anticipated and expected
to be detrimental to the good health and
well-being of the animals in their
possession). Such contingency plans
must:
(i) Identify situations the facility
might experience that would trigger the
need for a contingency plan, including
emergencies such as electrical outages,
faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the
facility is most likely to experience.
(ii) Outline specific tasks required to
be carried out in response to the
identified emergencies or disasters
including, but not limited to, detailed
animal evacuation instructions or
shelter-in-place instructions and
provisions for providing backup sources
of food and water as well as sanitation,
ventilation, bedding, veterinary care,
etc.;
(iii) Identify a chain of command and
who (by name or by position title) will
be responsible for fulfilling these tasks;
and
(iv) Address how response and
recovery will be handled in terms of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
materials, resources, and training
needed.
(2) The contingency plan must be in
place by [date 180 days after effective
date of final rule]. This plan must be
made available to APHIS and any
funding Federal agency representatives
upon request. The plan must be
reviewed by the research facility on at
least an annual basis to ensure that it
adequately addresses the criteria listed
in paragraph (l)(1) of this section.
Facilities maintaining or otherwise
handling marine mammals in captivity
must also comply with the requirements
of § 3.101(b) of this subchapter.
(3) The facility must provide and
document participation in and
successful completion of training for its
personnel regarding their roles and
responsibilities as outlined in the plan.
Training of facility personnel must be
completed within 60 days of the
adoption date required under paragraph
(l)(2) of this section; employees hired 30
days or less after that date must also be
trained within that 60-day period. For
employees hired more than 30 days after
adoption of the contingency plan,
training must be conducted within 30
days of their start date. Any changes to
the plan as a result of the annual review
must be communicated to employees
through training which must be
conducted within 30 days of making the
changes.
3. Section 2.102 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(3)
to read as follows:
§ 2.102
Holding facility.
(a) * * *
(4) The other person or premises must
either be directly included in the
dealer’s or exhibitor’s contingency plan
required under § 2.134 or must develop
its own contingency plan in accordance
with § 2.134.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) The other person or premises must
either be directly included in the
intermediate handler’s contingency plan
required under § 2.134 or must develop
its own contingency plan in accordance
with § 2.134.
4. A new section § 2.134 is added to
read as follows:
§ 2.134
Contingency planning.
(a) Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate
handlers, and carriers must develop,
document, and follow an appropriate
plan to provide for the humane
handling, treatment, transportation,
housing, and care of their animals in the
event of an emergency or disaster (one
which could reasonably be anticipated
and expected to be detrimental to the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63089
good health and well-being of the
animals in their possession). Such
contingency plans must:
(1) Identify situations the facility
might experience that would trigger the
need for a contingency plan, including
emergencies such as electrical outages,
faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the
facility is most likely to experience;
(2) Outline specific tasks required to
be carried out in response to the
identified emergencies or disasters
including, but not limited to, detailed
animal evacuation instructions or
shelter-in-place instructions and
provisions for providing backup sources
of food and water as well as sanitation,
ventilation, bedding, veterinary care,
etc.;
(3) Identify a chain of command and
who (by name or by position title) will
be responsible for fulfilling these tasks;
and
(4) Address how response and
recovery will be handled in terms of
materials, resources, and training
needed.
(b) The contingency plan must be in
place by [date 180 days after effective
date of final rule]. This plan must be
made available to APHIS upon request.
The plan must be reviewed by the
dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler,
or carrier on at least an annual basis to
ensure that it adequately addresses the
criteria listed in paragraph (a) of this
section. Dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers
maintaining or otherwise handling
marine mammals in captivity must also
comply with the requirements of
§ 3.101(b) of this subchapter.
(c) Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate
handlers, and carriers must provide and
document participation in and
successful completion of training for
personnel regarding their roles and
responsibilities as outlined in the plan.
Training of dealer, exhibitor,
intermediate handler, and carrier
personnel must be completed within 60
days of the adoption date required
under paragraph (b) of this section.
Employees hired 30 days or less after
that date must also be trained within
that 60-day period. For employees hired
more than 30 days after adoption of the
contingency plan, training must be
conducted within 30 days of their start
date. Any changes to the plan as a result
of the annual review must be
communicated to employees through
training which must be conducted
within 30 days of making the changes.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
63090
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 206 / Thursday, October 23, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of
October 2008.
Bruce Knight,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. E8–25289 Filed 10–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2008–0952; Directorate
Identifier 98–ANE–49–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; General
Electric Company CF6–80A, CF6–80C2,
and CF6–80E1 Series Turbofan
Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to
supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for General Electric
Company (GE) CF6–80A, CF6–80C2,
and CF6–80E1 series turbofan engines.
That AD currently requires revisions to
the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) of the manufacturer’s Instructions
for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to
include required inspection of selected
critical life-limited parts at each piecepart exposure. This proposed AD would
require revisions to the CF6–80A, CF6–
80C2, and CF6–80E1 series engines ALS
sections of the manufacturer’s manuals
and an air carrier’s approved continuous
airworthiness maintenance program to
incorporate additional inspection
requirements, and to update certain
Engine Manual Inspection Task and Sub
Task Number references. This proposed
AD results from the need to require
enhanced inspection of selected critical
life-limited parts of CF6–80A, CF6–
80C2, and CF6–80E1 series engines. We
are proposing this AD to prevent critical
life-limited rotating engine part failure,
which could result in an uncontained
engine failure and damage to the
airplane.
We must receive any comments
on this proposed AD by December 22,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to comment on this proposed
AD.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:57 Oct 22, 2008
Jkt 217001
the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
e-mail: robert.green@faa.gov; telephone
(781) 238–7754; (781) 238–7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments
regarding this proposal. Send your
comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2008–0952; Directorate Identifier 98–
ANE–49–AD’’ in the subject line of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD.
Using the search function of the Web
site, anyone can find and read the
comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the
individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78).
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
same as the Mail address provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
Discussion
On April 3, 2002, we issued AD 2002–
07–12, Amendment 39–12707 (67 FR
17279, April 10, 2002), to require
revisions to the ALS of the
manufacturer’s ICA for GE CF6–80A,
CF6–80C2, and CF6–80E1 series
turbofan engines to include required
enhanced inspection of selected critical
life-limited parts at each piece-part
exposure.
Additional Inspection Procedures
Since the issuance of that AD, an FAA
study of in-service events involving
uncontained failures of critical rotating
engine parts has indicated the need for
additional mandatory inspections. The
mandatory inspections are needed to
identify those critical rotating parts with
conditions, which if allowed to
continue in service, could result in
uncontained engine failures. This
proposal would require revisions to the
CF6–80A, CF6–80C2, and CF6–80E1
series engines ALS sections of the
manufacturer’s manuals and an air
carrier’s approved continuous
airworthiness maintenance program to
incorporate additional inspection
requirements.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of the Proposed AD
Since an unsafe condition has been
identified that is likely to exist or
develop on other products of this same
type design, the proposed AD would
supersede AD 2002–07–12 to add
additional inspections for certain highpressure turbine (HPT) components, and
to update certain Engine Manual
Inspection Task and or Sub Task
Number references. These inspections
would be required at each piece-part
opportunity. For reference, this
proposed AD carries forward the
requirements from AD 2002–07–12.
Also for reference, the parts added to
the table in the compliance section of
this AD are identified by an asterisk (*)
that precedes the part nomenclature.
Also for reference, parts that have an
Engine Manual Inspection Task and or
Sub Task Number reference updated in
the table in the compliance section of
this AD, are identified by two asterisks
(**) that precede the part nomenclature.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD
would affect 315 CF6–80A series
engines and 926 CF6–80C2 series
engines installed on airplanes of U.S.
E:\FR\FM\23OCP1.SGM
23OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 206 (Thursday, October 23, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63085-63090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25289]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0159]
RIN 0579-AC69
Handling of Animals; Contingency Plans
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations
to add requirements for contingency planning and training of personnel
by research facilities and by dealers, exhibitors, intermediate
handlers, and carriers. We are proposing these requirements because we
believe all licensees and registrants should develop
[[Page 63086]]
a contingency plan for all animals regulated under the Animal Welfare
Act in an effort to better prepare for potential disasters. This action
would heighten the awareness of licensees and registrants regarding
their responsibilities and help ensure a timely and appropriate
response should an emergency or disaster occur.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
December 22, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0159 to submit or view comments and
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0159, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to
Docket No. APHIS-2006-0159.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jodie Kulpa-Eddy, Staff
Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale,
MD 20737; (301) 734-7833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and
other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities,
exhibitors, operators of auction sales, carriers, and intermediate
handlers. Regulations established under the AWA are contained in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1 and 2, and 9 CFR
part 3 contains standards for the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals covered by the AWA. Part 3 consists of
subparts A through E, which contain specific standards for dogs and
cats, guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, and marine
mammals, respectively, and subpart F, which sets forth general
standards for warmblooded animals not otherwise specified.
The only requirement for contingency planning by licensees and
registrants currently in the regulations is located in Sec. 3.101(b),
which covers water and power supply requirements at facilities housing
marine mammals. Specifically, this section requires facilities to
submit written contingency plans to the Deputy Administrator of Animal
Care (AC) regarding emergency sources of water and electric power
should primary sources fail. Among other things, the plans must include
evacuation plans in the event of a disaster and a description of backup
systems and/or arrangements for relocating marine mammals requiring
artificially cooled or heated water.
Following the events experienced during the 2005 hurricane season,
a Federal document, ``The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons
Learned,'' which can be found on the Internet at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/, was published that
highlighted the need for planning to minimize the impact of disasters.
AC's experience indicates that, although contingency planning would
benefit the health and welfare of animals covered by the AWA, at least
some entities responsible for regulated animals have not undertaken
such planning. Therefore, we believe all licensees and registrants
should be required to develop a contingency plan for all animals
regulated under the AWA in an effort to better prepare for potential
disasters. We are proposing to add requirements for contingency plans,
and training of personnel regarding their roles and responsibilities,
to a new Sec. 2.38(l) for research facilities and to a new Sec. 2.134
for dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers. For
marine mammal facilities, these proposed requirements would be in
addition to the requirements of Sec. 3.101(b) mentioned above.
The regulations in current Sec. 2.38(i) allow a person or premises
to be designated as a recognized animal site for holding animals in
lieu of a research facility, if the research facility obtains prior
approval of the AC Regional Director. Likewise, the regulations in
Sec. 2.102 allow a person or premises to be designated as a recognized
animal site for holding animals in lieu of a dealer, exhibitor, or
intermediate handler if the dealer, exhibitor, or intermediate handler
obtains prior approval of the AC Regional Director. We would also amend
these provisions to require that any site so designated either be
directly included in the contingency plan of the research facility,
dealer, exhibitor, or intermediate handler or develop its own
contingency plan in accordance with the regulations for research
facilities, dealers, exhibitors, or intermediate handlers.
Due to the fact that the individual circumstances for facilities
may be different (e.g., holding exotic animals versus pet animals,
being situated in a State with a cold climate versus a temperate
climate, etc.), it is difficult to go into specific detail as to what
elements must be included in all contingency plans. However, we are
proposing a set of general criteria to which contingency plans would
have to adhere. These criteria would require licensees and registrants
to develop contingency plans that:
Identify situations the facility might experience that
would trigger the need for a contingency plan, including emergencies
such as electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to
experience. Listings of areas most at risk for specific natural
disasters can be found on the U.S. Geological Survey Web site at http:/
/www.usgs.gov/hazards or on the Weather Channel Web site at https://
www.weather.com/ready/?from=secondarynav.
Outline specific tasks required to be carried out in
response to the identified emergencies including, but not limited to,
detailed animal evacuation instructions or shelter-in-place
instructions and provisions for providing backup sources of food and
water as well as sanitation, ventilation, bedding, veterinary care,
etc.
Identify a chain of command and who (by name or by
position title) will be responsible for fulfilling these tasks.
Address how response and recovery will be handled in terms
of materials, resources, and training needed.
We are also considering the development of a guidance document (or
other means) to provide examples of elements that may be included in
contingency plans. We welcome public comment on Web sites, articles, or
other sources that may be used to develop such guidance, in addition to
suggestions as to what elements should be included as examples for an
adequate contingency plan. We would retain the specific requirements in
Sec. 3.101(b) that are applicable to marine mammals.
[[Page 63087]]
We are further proposing that the plans be made available to APHIS
upon request and, in the case of research facilities, to any funding
Federal agency representatives. Contingency plans would have to be in
place 180 days after any final rule following this proposal became
effective and would have to be reviewed by the research facility,
dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier on at least an
annual basis. Training of personnel would have to take place within 60
days following the adoption of a contingency plan by the research
facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier.
Employees hired within 30 days or less after adoption of the
contingency plan would be included in the training period taking place
within 60 days following adoption of the contingency plan. For
employees hired more than 30 days after adoption of the contingency
plan, training would have to be conducted within 30 days of their start
date. Training of personnel could be developed and offered by the
research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier
or provided by an outside entity.
Each research facility, dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or
carrier would be expected to review its contingency plan on at least an
annual basis to ensure their plan adequately addresses the four
criteria listed above. For licensees and registrants who travel with
animals or have multiple sites where animals are maintained, their
contingency plans would have to address potential hazards for all areas
where the animals are maintained for regulated purposes. Any changes to
a contingency plan resulting from the annual review would have to be
communicated to employees through training, which would have to be
conducted within 30 days of making the changes. The plan would also be
reviewed by APHIS personnel as a part of the routine inspection process
(similar to the process for our review of dog exercise and nonhuman
primate environment enhancement plans).
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. This 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.
For this proposed rule, we have prepared an economic analysis,
which is summarized below. The analysis includes an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis that considers the potential economic effects of
the proposed rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive
Order 12866. The full economic analysis may be viewed on the
Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above
for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov). The full analysis may
also be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Lack of disaster preparedness can leave businesses and
organizations and the animals in their care vulnerable, as was the case
in the southern United States in 2005. The devastating impact of the
2005 hurricane season, in particular the many animals that were
stranded and died in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, underscores
the need for contingency planning for all animals covered under the
Animal Welfare Act. Regulated animal populations, in addition to non-
regulated animal populations, suffered as a result of the hurricane. In
one particular instance, 90 percent of the animals left in a facility
after personnel were evacuated either died or had to be humanely
euthanized.
In 2004, USDA's Animal Care reported 1,101,958 animals, including
dogs, cats, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, hamsters, and rabbits, were
used by registered research facilities (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml). This does not
include regulated animals in zoos and other types of facilities. This
high number of animals used by research facilities illustrates the need
for contingency plans to protect animals and mitigate impacts of
natural and manmade disasters.
Currently, only facilities that house marine mammals are required
under the regulations to develop contingency plans. The proposed rule
would require that all licensees and registrants, of which there are
more than 10,000, develop and document contingency plans for all other
animals covered under the Act. In addition, training and
familiarization with these plans would have to be provided to all
facility employees.
The proposed requirements may affect research facilities, dealers,
exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers that fall into nine
categories of the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS). For the purposes of this analysis, the potentially affected
entities are classified within the following industries: All Other
Animal Production (NAICS 112990), Pet and Pet Supplies Stores (NAICS
453910),\1\ Schedule Freight Transport (NAICS 48112), Research and
Development in Physical Engineering and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710),
Veterinary Services (NAICS 541940), Zoos and Botanical Gardens (NAICS
712130), Nature Park and Other Similar Institutions (NAICS 712190),
Environment Conservation and Wildlife Organizations (NAICS 813312), and
Pet Care Services (NAICS 812910). Data are unavailable on the size of
the specific entities, but we may assume that the majority of the
establishments that would be affected by the rule are small, based on
the industry estimates obtained from the Economic Census and the Census
of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Businesses are included in this category if they deal in
exotic pets such as primates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of economic impacts, we anticipate that the proposed
changes would only impose minimal costs to develop and document the
contingency plans and provide employee training. This is because the
cost of training for facility personnel is expected to vary depending
on the type and size of business and many of the larger facilities, in
particular, already have contingency plans in place. In addition, there
is a wealth of information available from various Federal and State
agencies and private organizations that addresses animal disaster
planning. A list of resources that may aid in the development and
implementation of contingency plans is included in the full economic
analysis.
We do not have any estimates of the costs of implementing
contingency plans for facilities that do not already have contingency
plans in place, such as the costs of equipment or materials that may be
needed. We welcome public comment on the types of equipment or
materials that may be needed to implement contingency plans and the
costs of this equipment or materials.
Significant Alternatives to the Rule
One alternative to the rule would be to require that all licensees
and registrants submit their contingency plans to APHIS for review, as
is required for the marine mammal facilities. There are more than
10,000 licensees and registrants that would be submitting plans for
review under this alternative, which we expect would take an enormous
amount of resources for the Agency to process, review, and store.
Another alternative would be to retain the status quo, i.e., not amend
the regulations to require regulated entities other than marine mammal
facilities to prepare contingency plans. However, we believe that this
alternative would
[[Page 63088]]
not provide adequate protection for the general public and the animals
in these facilities. Thus, the approach we are proposing in this
document, which would ensure that contingency plans are developed and
can be reviewed by APHIS during scheduled inspection visits or at other
times, is preferred.
Summary
Preparedness for disasters can reduce harm caused to animals and
loss of life. The devastating impact of the 2005 hurricane season
underscores the need for contingency planning for all animals covered
under the Animal Welfare Act. Currently, only facilities that house
marine mammals are required under 9 CFR 3.101 to develop contingency
plans. The proposed rule would require that all licensees and
registrants develop and document contingency plans for all other
animals covered under the Act. In addition, training and
familiarization with these plans would be provided to all facility
employees. The licensees and registrants fall into various categories
of the North American Industry Classification System and while no
economic data are available on business size for the specific entities,
we may assume the majority of the establishments are small, based on
the industry estimates obtained from the Economic Census and the Census
of Agriculture. In terms of economic impacts, we anticipate that the
proposed rule would only impose minimal costs to develop and document
the contingency plans and provide employee training. The cost of
training for facility personnel is expected to vary depending on the
type and size of business. Many of the larger facilities, in
particular, already have contingency plans in place. Overall, we do not
anticipate a substantial economic impact on the entities affected.
Nevertheless, APHIS welcomes public comment on the proposed rule's
possible impacts, including the cost of implementing contingency plans.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. 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.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0159. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS-2006-0159, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238,
and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication of this proposed rule.
The proposed rule would amend the current regulations and would
require all licensees and registrants, which include research
facilities, dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers,
to develop and document contingency plans for the handling of animals
during all emergencies or disasters.
These criteria would require licensees and registrants to develop
contingency plans that:
Identify situations the facility might experience that
would trigger the need for a contingency plan, including emergencies
such as electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to
experience.
Outline specific tasks required to be carried out in
response to the identified emergencies or disasters including, but not
limited to, detailed animal evacuation instructions or shelter-in-place
instructions and provisions for providing backup sources of food and
water as well as sanitation, ventilation, bedding, veterinary care,
etc.
Identify a chain of command and who (by name or by
position title) will be responsible for fulfilling these tasks.
Address how response and recovery will be handled in terms
of materials, resources, and training needed.
We are further proposing that the plans be made available to APHIS
upon request and, in the case of research facilities, to any funding
Federal agency representatives. Contingency plans would have to be in
place 180 days after any final rule following this proposal became
effective and would have to be reviewed by the research facility,
dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier on at least an
annual basis.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated at 4 to 6 hours (average 5 hours) per
response.
Respondents: Dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, carriers and
intermediate handlers.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 10,351.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated annual number of responses: 10,351.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 51,755 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
851-2908.
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
[[Page 63089]]
E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please
contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 2
Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 2 as follows:
PART 2--REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
2. Section 2.38 is amended by adding new paragraphs (i)(4) and (l)
to read as follows:
Sec. 2.38 Miscellaneous.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) The other person or premises must either be directly included
in the research facility's contingency plan required under paragraph
(l) of this section or must develop its own contingency plan in
accordance with paragraph (l) of this section.
* * * * *
(l) Contingency planning. (1) Research facilities must develop,
document, and follow an appropriate plan to provide for the humane
handling, treatment, transportation, housing, and care of their animals
in the event of an emergency or disaster (one which could reasonably be
anticipated and expected to be detrimental to the good health and well-
being of the animals in their possession). Such contingency plans must:
(i) Identify situations the facility might experience that would
trigger the need for a contingency plan, including emergencies such as
electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal escapes, as
well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to experience.
(ii) Outline specific tasks required to be carried out in response
to the identified emergencies or disasters including, but not limited
to, detailed animal evacuation instructions or shelter-in-place
instructions and provisions for providing backup sources of food and
water as well as sanitation, ventilation, bedding, veterinary care,
etc.;
(iii) Identify a chain of command and who (by name or by position
title) will be responsible for fulfilling these tasks; and
(iv) Address how response and recovery will be handled in terms of
materials, resources, and training needed.
(2) The contingency plan must be in place by [date 180 days after
effective date of final rule]. This plan must be made available to
APHIS and any funding Federal agency representatives upon request. The
plan must be reviewed by the research facility on at least an annual
basis to ensure that it adequately addresses the criteria listed in
paragraph (l)(1) of this section. Facilities maintaining or otherwise
handling marine mammals in captivity must also comply with the
requirements of Sec. 3.101(b) of this subchapter.
(3) The facility must provide and document participation in and
successful completion of training for its personnel regarding their
roles and responsibilities as outlined in the plan. Training of
facility personnel must be completed within 60 days of the adoption
date required under paragraph (l)(2) of this section; employees hired
30 days or less after that date must also be trained within that 60-day
period. For employees hired more than 30 days after adoption of the
contingency plan, training must be conducted within 30 days of their
start date. Any changes to the plan as a result of the annual review
must be communicated to employees through training which must be
conducted within 30 days of making the changes.
3. Section 2.102 is amended by adding new paragraphs (a)(4) and
(b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.102 Holding facility.
(a) * * *
(4) The other person or premises must either be directly included
in the dealer's or exhibitor's contingency plan required under Sec.
2.134 or must develop its own contingency plan in accordance with Sec.
2.134.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The other person or premises must either be directly included
in the intermediate handler's contingency plan required under Sec.
2.134 or must develop its own contingency plan in accordance with Sec.
2.134.
4. A new section Sec. 2.134 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 2.134 Contingency planning.
(a) Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers must
develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan to provide for the
humane handling, treatment, transportation, housing, and care of their
animals in the event of an emergency or disaster (one which could
reasonably be anticipated and expected to be detrimental to the good
health and well-being of the animals in their possession). Such
contingency plans must:
(1) Identify situations the facility might experience that would
trigger the need for a contingency plan, including emergencies such as
electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal escapes, as
well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to experience;
(2) Outline specific tasks required to be carried out in response
to the identified emergencies or disasters including, but not limited
to, detailed animal evacuation instructions or shelter-in-place
instructions and provisions for providing backup sources of food and
water as well as sanitation, ventilation, bedding, veterinary care,
etc.;
(3) Identify a chain of command and who (by name or by position
title) will be responsible for fulfilling these tasks; and
(4) Address how response and recovery will be handled in terms of
materials, resources, and training needed.
(b) The contingency plan must be in place by [date 180 days after
effective date of final rule]. This plan must be made available to
APHIS upon request. The plan must be reviewed by the dealer, exhibitor,
intermediate handler, or carrier on at least an annual basis to ensure
that it adequately addresses the criteria listed in paragraph (a) of
this section. Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers
maintaining or otherwise handling marine mammals in captivity must also
comply with the requirements of Sec. 3.101(b) of this subchapter.
(c) Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers must
provide and document participation in and successful completion of
training for personnel regarding their roles and responsibilities as
outlined in the plan. Training of dealer, exhibitor, intermediate
handler, and carrier personnel must be completed within 60 days of the
adoption date required under paragraph (b) of this section. Employees
hired 30 days or less after that date must also be trained within that
60-day period. For employees hired more than 30 days after adoption of
the contingency plan, training must be conducted within 30 days of
their start date. Any changes to the plan as a result of the annual
review must be communicated to employees through training which must be
conducted within 30 days of making the changes.
[[Page 63090]]
Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of October 2008.
Bruce Knight,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-25289 Filed 10-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P