Livestock Marketing Facilities, 16593-16594 [2015-07217]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
animal identification, recordkeeping,
access for inspection, confiscation of
animals, and handling, among other
requirements. Within part 2, subpart C
contains the regulations specific to
research facilities.
Among other requirements, research
facilities, other than Federal research
facilities, must register with APHIS and
appoint an Institutional Animal Care
and Use Committee (IACUC). The
IACUC, which must be composed of a
chairperson and at least two other
members, is required to perform certain
functions in order to ensure the
facility’s compliance with the AWA
regulations.
As one of these functions, the IACUC
must review proposed activities
involving animals that are performed at
the facility, as well as significant
changes in ongoing activities, in order to
determine that the principle investigator
has considered alternatives to
procedures that may cause more than
momentary or slight pain or distress to
the animals, and has provided a written
narrative description of the methods
and sources used to determine that
alternatives were not available.
On October 30, 2013, APHIS received
a petition from the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine
(referred to below as PCRM) requesting
that we initiate rulemaking to amend
the AWA regulations. Specifically,
PCRM asks that we amend part 1 to add
a definition of the term alternatives in
order to delineate what a primary
investigator is required to consider in
lieu of a procedure that may cause more
than momentary or slight pain or
distress to the animals. The petition also
asks that we amend the existing
definition of painful procedure in order
to codify a long-standing APHIS policy
that a procedure should be considered
to be painful if it may cause more than
momentary or slight pain of distress to
the animals, even if this pain is
subsequently relieved through
anesthesia. Finally, the petition asks
that we amend part 2 to specify what
must occur as part of a consideration of
alternatives.
The petition states that the intent of
the AWA is to authorize research
facilities to undertake procedures likely
to produce pain or distress in animals
only if no alternatives exist to these
procedures, and that the AWA
regulations support this interpretation
of the AWA itself. The petition suggests,
however, that because of ambiguities in
the AWA regulations, research facilities
have sometimes construed them to
mean that cursory deliberation
regarding alternatives suffices to meet
this regulatory and statutory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Mar 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
requirement to consider alternatives.
The petition states that, by amending
the AWA regulations in the manner that
PCRM suggests, we would remove these
ambiguities and facilitate regulatory
compliance.
We are making this petition available
to the public and soliciting comments to
help determine what action, if any, to
take in response to this request. The
petition and any comments submitted
are available for review as indicated
under ADDRESSES above. We welcome
all comments on the issues outlined in
the petition. In particular, we invite
responses to the following questions:
1. Should APHIS establish regulatory
standards for consideration of
alternatives to procedures that may
cause more than momentary or slight
pain or distress to animals?
2. What constitutes an alternative to a
procedure that may cause more than
momentary or slight pain or distress? If
we amend the AWA regulations to
define the term alternative, what
definition should we use?
3. What constitutes a thorough
consideration of alternatives? Does this
differ depending on the nature of the
research conducted? If so, how?
4. Who should make a determination
regarding the thoroughness of a primary
investigator’s consideration of
alternatives: The IACUC for a facility,
APHIS, or both parties?
5. If the IACUC and APHIS should
jointly make a determination, which
responsibilities should fall to APHIS
and which to the IACUC in terms of
evaluating thoroughness?
6. What documentation should the
primary investigator provide to
demonstrate that he or she has done a
thorough consideration of alternatives?
We encourage the submission of
scientific data, studies, or research to
support your comments and position.
We also invite data on the costs and
benefits associated with any
recommendations. We will consider all
comments and recommendations we
receive.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.7.
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of
March 2015.
Jere L. Dick,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–07221 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16593
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86
[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0018]
RIN 0579–AE02
Livestock Marketing Facilities
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
We are reopening the
comment period for our proposed rule
that would amend the regulations
governing approval of facilities that
receive livestock moved in interstate
commerce, as well as the conditions
under which livestock may move to
such facilities without official
identification or prior issuance of an
interstate certificate of veterinary
inspection or alternative
documentation. This action will allow
interested persons additional time to
prepare and submit comments.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published on January 2,
2015 (80 FR 6 through 13) is reopened.
We will consider all comments that we
receive on or before April 15, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2014–0018, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018 or
in our reading room, which 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) 799–7039
before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Neil Hammerschmidt, Program
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability,
VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–
3539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.SGM
30MRP1
16594
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
On January 2, 2015, we published in
the Federal Register (80 FR 6 through
13, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0018) a
proposal to amend the regulations in 9
CFR subchapters B and C.
We proposed to amend the
regulations in part 51 of subchapter B
and several parts of subchapter C to,
among other things, replace references
to ‘‘approved livestock facilities,’’
‘‘approved stockyards’’ and
‘‘specifically approved stockyards’’ with
the term ‘‘approved livestock marketing
facilities.’’
We proposed to amend the
regulations in § 71.20, which provide
the conditions under which the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture may approve
a livestock facility to receive livestock
that are moved interstate under
conditions that are afforded only to such
approved facilities. The current
regulations in that section require the
person legally responsible for the dayto-day operations of the facility to
execute an agreement with APHIS
regarding the manner in which the
facility will operate, if approved. The
provisions of the agreement are
currently set forth in the regulations.
We proposed to remove the terms of
the agreement from the regulations, and
place them instead in a document titled
‘‘The Approved Livestock Marketing
Facility Agreement,’’ which we would
maintain on the Internet. We also
proposed to update the terms of the
agreement and to make other
amendments to § 71.20 that would
update and clarify the section’s content.
We proposed to revise § 86.4 in order
to clarify the conditions under which
cattle and bison may be moved
interstate to an approved livestock
marketing facility without official
identification. We also proposed to
revise § 86.5 in order to clarify the
conditions under which cattle or bison
may be moved interstate to an approved
livestock facility without an
accompanying interstate certificate of
veterinary inspection or owner-shipper
statement.
Comments on the proposed rule were
required to be received on or before
March 3, 2015. We are reopening the
comment period on Docket No. APHIS–
2014–0018. The comment period will
now close on April 15, 2015. We will
also accept all comments received
between March 4, 2015 (the day after
the close of the original comment
period) and the date of this notice. This
action will allow interested persons
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Mar 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
additional time to prepare and submit
comments.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of
March 2015.
Jere L. Dick,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–07217 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
11 CFR Part 111
[Notice 2015–05]
Rulemaking Petition: Administrative
Fines Program and Commission Forms
Federal Election Commission.
Rulemaking Petition: Notice of
availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
On January 23, 2015, the
Federal Election Commission received a
Petition for Rulemaking asking the
Commission to expand its
Administrative Fines Program and to
revise and update several Commission
forms and their instructions. The
Commission seeks comments on this
petition.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be submitted on
or before May 29, 2015.
ADDRESSES: All comments must be in
writing. Commenters are encouraged to
submit comments electronically via the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG
2015–01, or by email to
FinesAndForms@fec.gov. Alternatively,
commenters may submit comments in
paper form, addressed to the Federal
Election Commission, Attn.: Robert M.
Knop, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E
Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.
Each commenter must provide, at a
minimum, his or her first name, last
name, city, state, and zip code. All
properly submitted comments,
including attachments, will become part
of the public record, and the
Commission will make comments
available for public viewing on the
Commission’s Web site and in the
Commission’s Public Records room.
Accordingly, commenters should not
provide in their comments any
information that they do not wish to
make public, such as a home street
address, personal email address, date of
birth, phone number, social security
number, or driver’s license number, or
any information that is restricted from
disclosure, such as trade secrets or
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
commercial or financial information
that is privileged or confidential.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert M. Knop, Assistant General
Counsel, Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic,
Attorney, or Ms. Holly Ratliff, Office of
General Counsel, 999 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650
or (800) 424–9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 23, 2015, the Federal Election
Commission received a Petition for
Rulemaking from seven attorneys 1
(collectively ‘‘petitioners’’) regarding the
Commission’s Administrative Fines
Program (‘‘AFP’’) and several of the
Commission’s forms and their
accompanying instructions. Under the
AFP, the Commission assesses civil
monetary penalties for late filing and
failure to file certain reports as required
by 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) (formerly 2 U.S.C.
434(a)) (requiring political committee
treasurers to report receipts and
disbursements within certain time
periods). 11 CFR 111.30; see also 52
U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C) (formerly 2 U.S.C.
437g(a)(4)(C)). If the Commission
determines that such a violation has
occurred, it may assess a civil monetary
penalty according to the AFP penalty
schedules at 11 CFR 111.43–.44.
In December 2013, Congress
authorized the Commission to expand
the scope of the AFP to encompass
reporting violations for reports filed
under 52 U.S.C. 30104(c) (formerly 2
U.S.C. 434(c)) (certain independent
expenditure reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(e)
(formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(e)) (certain
federal election activity reports), 52
U.S.C. 30104(f) (formerly 2 U.S.C.
434(f)) (electioneering communications
reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(g) (formerly 2
U.S.C. 434(g)) (24- and 48-hour
independent expenditure reports), 52
U.S.C. 30104(i) (formerly 2 U.S.C.
434(i)) (bundled contribution reports),
and 52 U.S.C. 30105 (formerly 2 U.S.C.
437) (certain convention reports). See
Public Law 113–72, 127 Stat. 1210
(2013). The petitioners ask the
Commission to conduct a rulemaking to
expand the scope of the AFP to these
additional categories of reporting
violations, using an approach that
considers the criteria in the penalty
schedule found at 11 CFR 111.43
(election sensitivity, level of activity,
number of days late, and number of
previous violations) and similar factors
but eschews a strict formulaic penalty.
The petitioners also ask the
Commission to revise several of its
1 Messrs. Robert F. Bauer, Allen Dickerson,
Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Donald F. McGahn II,
Laurence E. Gold, Robert D. Lenhard, and Bradley
A. Smith.
E:\FR\FM\30MRP1.SGM
30MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16593-16594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07217]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86
[Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018]
RIN 0579-AE02
Livestock Marketing Facilities
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that
would amend the regulations governing approval of facilities that
receive livestock moved in interstate commerce, as well as the
conditions under which livestock may move to such facilities without
official identification or prior issuance of an interstate certificate
of veterinary inspection or alternative documentation. This action will
allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit
comments.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 2,
2015 (80 FR 6 through 13) is reopened. We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before April 15, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-
0018 or in our reading room, which 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) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 16594]]
Background
On January 2, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 6
through 13, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018) a proposal to amend the
regulations in 9 CFR subchapters B and C.
We proposed to amend the regulations in part 51 of subchapter B and
several parts of subchapter C to, among other things, replace
references to ``approved livestock facilities,'' ``approved
stockyards'' and ``specifically approved stockyards'' with the term
``approved livestock marketing facilities.''
We proposed to amend the regulations in Sec. 71.20, which provide
the conditions under which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture may
approve a livestock facility to receive livestock that are moved
interstate under conditions that are afforded only to such approved
facilities. The current regulations in that section require the person
legally responsible for the day-to-day operations of the facility to
execute an agreement with APHIS regarding the manner in which the
facility will operate, if approved. The provisions of the agreement are
currently set forth in the regulations.
We proposed to remove the terms of the agreement from the
regulations, and place them instead in a document titled ``The Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement,'' which we would maintain on
the Internet. We also proposed to update the terms of the agreement and
to make other amendments to Sec. 71.20 that would update and clarify
the section's content.
We proposed to revise Sec. 86.4 in order to clarify the conditions
under which cattle and bison may be moved interstate to an approved
livestock marketing facility without official identification. We also
proposed to revise Sec. 86.5 in order to clarify the conditions under
which cattle or bison may be moved interstate to an approved livestock
facility without an accompanying interstate certificate of veterinary
inspection or owner-shipper statement.
Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or
before March 3, 2015. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No.
APHIS-2014-0018. The comment period will now close on April 15, 2015.
We will also accept all comments received between March 4, 2015 (the
day after the close of the original comment period) and the date of
this notice. This action will allow interested persons additional time
to prepare and submit comments.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of March 2015.
Jere L. Dick,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-07217 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P