Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to Requirements for Dogs, 28772-28799 [2020-07837]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28772-28799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07837]



[[Page 28771]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 93

May 13, 2020

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





9 CFR Parts 1, 2 and 3





Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to Requirements 
for Dogs; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 93 / Wednesday, May 13, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 28772]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3

[Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062]
RIN 0579-AE35


Animal Welfare; Amendments to Licensing Provisions and to 
Requirements for Dogs

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the licensing requirements in the Animal 
Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to promote compliance, reduce licensing 
fees, and strengthen safeguards that prevent individuals and businesses 
with a history of noncompliance from obtaining a license or working 
with regulated animals. This action will reduce regulatory burden with 
respect to licensing and help ensure licensees' sustained compliance 
with the AWA, thus promoting animal welfare. We have also revised the 
veterinary care and watering standards for regulated dogs to better 
align the regulations with the humane care and treatment standards set 
by the Animal Welfare Act.

DATES: Effective November 9, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; 
(301) 851-3751; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 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, 
exhibitors, operators of auction sales, research facilities, and 
carriers and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has delegated 
responsibility for administering the AWA to the Administrator of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for 
administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator 
for Animal Care. Definitions, regulations, and standards established 
under the AWA are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to 
below as the regulations). Part 1 contains definitions for terms used 
in parts 2 and 3. Part 2 provides administrative requirements and sets 
forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties, including 
licensing requirements for dealers, exhibitors, and operators of 
auction sales. Dealers, exhibitors, and operators of auction sales are 
required to comply in all respects with the regulations and standards 
(Sec.  2.100(a)) and to allow APHIS officials access to their place of 
business, facilities, animals, and records to inspect for compliance 
(Sec.  2.126). Part 3 provides standards for the humane handling, care, 
treatment, and transportation of covered animals. 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 in that part.
    Under the current regulations, an applicant for an initial license 
is required to submit an application form, an application fee, and an 
annual license fee to Animal Care (Sec.  2.1(c)), acknowledge receipt 
of a copy of the regulations and agree to comply with them by signing 
the application form (Sec.  2.2(a)), and demonstrate compliance with 
the AWA regulations and standards, before APHIS can issue a license 
(Sec.  2.3(a)). Once a person receives a license, the licensee may 
renew his or her license annually by submitting an annual renewal form 
and license fee (Sec.  2.1(d)(1)).
    On March 22, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 
10721-10735, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062) a proposal to revise the AWA 
licensing requirements to promote compliance, reduce licensing fees and 
burdens, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent individuals 
and businesses who are unfit to hold a license (such as any individual 
whose license has been suspended or revoked or who has a history of 
noncompliance) from obtaining a license or from buying, selling, 
transporting, exhibiting, or delivering for transportation regulated 
animals. We also proposed revisions to the animal health and husbandry 
standards of part 3, subpart A, to ensure the adequate care and 
treatment of regulated dogs. Prior to the proposed rule, we published 
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register 
on August 24, 2017, (82 FR 40077-40078, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062), in 
which we solicited comments from the public regarding potential 
revisions to the AWA regulations.
    We solicited comments on the proposed rule for 60 days ending May 
21, 2019. On May 28, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 
24403, Docket No. APHIS-2017-0062) a document \1\ announcing a 
reopening of the comment period for an additional 15 days, to June 5, 
2019, to allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the ANPR, proposed rule, supporting documents, and 
the comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received approximately 110,600 comments on the proposed rule via 
courier, U.S. mail, and Regulations.gov. Of this total, 4,619 unique 
comments were received via Regulations.gov, along with approximately 
600 unique paper comments delivered to APHIS. Through Regulations.gov 
we also received 25,400 comments in 629 distinct sets of duplicate or 
near-duplicate comments. An additional 79,978 comments we received 
consisted of one of three electronic form letters drafted by a national 
animal welfare organization and endorsed by its supporters, some of 
whom added their views to the letter. We received comments from members 
of Congress, animal welfare organizations, animal rescue and sheltering 
organizations, licensed animal dealers, breeders, and exhibitors, 
kennel clubs, zoos and aquariums, theme parks, animal reserves, 
veterinarians and veterinary organizations, and members of the public. 
Issues raised by commenters are discussed below by topic. We address 
the issues in the order that they pertain to the regulatory text of the 
proposed rule.

Definitions

    We proposed to amend Sec.  [thinsp]1.1, ``Definitions,'' by 
removing the term AC Regional Director, as Animal Care is no longer 
organized under regions and regional directors. We proposed replacing 
references to the AC Regional Director with Animal Care Deputy 
Administrator and regional offices with the appropriate Animal Care 
office.
    One commenter opposed replacing many tasks that have historically 
been under the oversight of each Regional Director and stated that 
placing them under the oversight of the Deputy Administrator would be 
contrary to APHIS' own strategic plan. A few commenters stated that 
this proposed change suggests that APHIS is attempting to install an 
unqualified third party lacking in veterinary experience and 
credentials.
    We disagree with the commenters. The Deputy Administrator of Animal

[[Page 28773]]

Care has been delegated the authority by the Administrator of APHIS to 
direct activities to ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, the 
AWA.\2\ The replacement of the term AC Regional Director with Deputy 
Administrator reflects the current organizational structure of Animal 
Care and not a change in the authority of the Deputy Administrator. The 
Deputy Administrator of Animal Care is not required to have veterinary 
experience or credentials in order to be qualified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 7 CFR 371.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business Hours

    We proposed to revise the definition of business hours in Sec.  1.1 
of the regulations so that the term no longer limits inspection times 
to ``Monday through Friday, except for legal Federal holidays.'' We 
changed the definition to mean ``a reasonable number of hours between 7 
a.m. and 7 p.m. each week of the year, during which inspections by 
APHIS may be made.'' We made this change to accommodate persons who are 
employed in other types of work and are not usually available for 
inspections during the day on Monday through Friday.
    One commenter disagreed with our proposed change to business hours, 
stating that it is unclear what USDA means by ``reasonable.'' The 
commenter considered ``reasonable'' to be a minimum of 30 hours a week 
and not just weekends, and noted that not being present at the facility 
is a tactic on which licensees have often relied to avoid inspections.
    The AWA authorizes USDA personnel to have access, at all reasonable 
times, to the places of business and the facilities, animals, and 
records of dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, carriers, and 
intermediate handlers.\3\ As discussed in the proposed rule, we have 
observed a number of licensees who are not available for a reasonable 
number of hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday because 
they are employed full-time elsewhere during the weekdays or because 
they operate at reduced hours on weekdays to allow customers to visit 
their business on the weekends. We are therefore making the change as 
proposed to reflect these business practices and to ensure that such 
licensees are able to make their place of business and facilities, 
animals, and records available for inspection at all reasonable times 
as required by the Act. APHIS will continue to coordinate with 
licensees and registrants who do not maintain regular public business 
hours to establish optimal times for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 2146(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter stated that removing the business hour designation from 
Monday through Friday may negatively impact larger zoos and aquariums, 
as weekend staffs at these businesses are usually smaller than during 
the week.
    A licensee or registrant that is available a reasonable number of 
hours only Monday through Friday would still meet the definition of 
business hours for the purpose of inspections. It is not our intent to 
require that licensees and registrants be available for a reasonable 
number of hours on every day of the week, but rather a reasonable 
number of hours collectively during the course of a week. Therefore, we 
are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment.

Additional Definitions

    Several commenters asked that we add definitions to Sec.  1.1, 
including a definition of ``affirmative demonstration of compliance,'' 
to be defined as the demonstration of compliance with the Act, the 
regulations, and standards as documented on inspection reports created 
as part of the application or inspection process for the current period 
of licensure. In making this request, a few commenters suggested that 
without such a definition, APHIS hinders licensing by subjectively 
interpreting what constitutes compliance. Some persons commenting on 
the ANPR had also asked that we provide such a definition.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments. 
The rule already specifies that a license applicant must demonstrate 
that his or her location and any animals, facilities, vehicles, 
equipment, and other locations used or intended for use in the business 
comply with the AWA and the regulations. How APHIS inspectors document 
noncompliances is immaterial to whether the applicant demonstrates 
compliance.
    Several commenters asked that we add a definition for ``breeding 
female'' to Sec.  1.1. Some commenters also asked that we define 
``puppy mill'' in the regulations.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments. 
However, we note that USDA has explained its thinking on the meaning of 
the term ``breeding female'' in a previous rulemaking: ``While we 
recognize that breeders have several reasons for not breeding an intact 
female, for the purposes of enforcement, APHIS has to assume that a 
female that is capable of breeding may be bred. However, in determining 
whether an animal is capable of breeding, an APHIS inspector will take 
into consideration a variety of factors, including the animal's age, 
health, and fitness for breeding.'' \4\ As for the term ``puppy mill,'' 
we do not use the term, nor will we define it, as it does not appear in 
the Act or in our regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 78 FR 57227 (Sept. 18, 2013); https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/09/18/2013-22616/animal-welfare-retail-pet-stores-and-licensing-exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Licensing Requirements

    In Sec.  2.1, we proposed changes to the information required to be 
submitted in the licensing application, including requiring applicants 
to indicate the maximum number of animals on hand at any one time, 
types of animals anticipated to be held or exhibited, information 
demonstrating that applicants have adequate knowledge of and experience 
with the animals, and disclosure of any previous animal welfare pleas 
of no contest or findings of violations. We proposed these changes to 
help strengthen compliance with the AWA regulations.

Required Information on Application

    A few commenters recommended that the license form furnished by the 
Deputy Administrator in Sec.  2.1(a)(1) be applicable to a person 
renewing a license as well as a person seeking a license.
    We are making no changes in response to this comment because this 
rulemaking removes the license renewal process from the regulations.
    A commenter requested that we add a planned business hours section 
to the license application form to assist inspectors in gaining entry 
to operation on first contact. The commenter stated that APHIS 
inspection reports indicate that inspectors frequently have been unable 
to enter a facility on arrival due to no one being onsite, which 
removes the benefit of the unannounced inspection. The commenter asked 
if more could be done to ensure the unannounced inspection occurs on 
the first attempt.
    We do not believe requiring licensees to put their business hours 
on the application to be helpful to the inspectors, nor is it necessary 
for conducting unannounced inspections or scheduling prelicense 
inspections. We define business hours for inspections to be a 
reasonable number of hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. each week of the 
year to provide additional flexibility for inspectors to gain entry on 
the first contact. As noted above, we have observed that a number of 
licensees are employed full-time elsewhere during

[[Page 28774]]

the weekdays or operate at reduced hours on weekdays. We have 
additional communication tools to ensure the licensee is available for 
unannounced inspections. If a licensee or registrant is chronically 
unavailable for unannounced inspections, we take steps to remedy the 
situation, including attempting inspections at different times and days 
of the week. If necessary, we will coordinate with the person to 
establish an optimal inspection time range that includes multiple 
blocks of days of the week and multiple blocks of time in which they 
are available for an unannounced inspection. We will also pursue 
enforcement and other remedial actions if necessary. Accordingly, we 
are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    A commenter recommended that, in order to ensure that disclosure 
requirements have the intended impact, APHIS should include warning 
language on the license application that clearly informs applicants of 
the consequences of providing false information, including penalty of 
perjury.
    We agree with the commenter. Sections 2.11 and 2.12 of the 
regulations state that a license applicant who has made false or 
fraudulent statements or provided false or fraudulent records to USDA 
may have their application denied or their license terminated, if 
already issued. We will include this information on the new license 
application form.
    A commenter supported our proposed action to remove the 
``intention'' to operate as an exhibitor from Sec.  2.1(a) to make it 
more difficult for persons to obtain licenses solely for the purpose of 
circumventing State laws restricting the private possession and sale of 
exotic and wild animals (by only intending to exhibit but not actually 
exhibiting them). The commenter stated, however, that APHIS should take 
even greater steps to prevent this circumvention from occurring by 
asking applicants about insurance coverage, business advertising, and 
exhibition travel schedules on the application form in order to 
identify licensees keeping exotic animals only as pets.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns but are making no changes 
to the rule. Should we have concerns that a person is holding an AWA 
license to circumvent State laws restricting the private possession and 
sale of exotic and wild animals, we have the authority under Sec.  
2.125 of the regulations to request information concerning the business 
to assess whether the person is engaging in activities for which a 
license is required.
    On the other hand, a commenter opposing the rule said that APHIS' 
attempt to prevent persons from circumventing State law to keep exotic 
and wild animals violates statutes enforced by the Federal Trade 
Commission, and that the Federal Government is not allowed to 
circumvent State laws.
    We disagree with the commenter. This change in the regulations 
supports, rather than circumvents, State laws. The AWA authorizes and 
encourages APHIS to cooperate with State and other officials in 
carrying out the purposes of the AWA and any State, local, or municipal 
legislation or ordinance on the same subject. Finally, the regulations 
in Sec. Sec.  2.11 and 2.12 have long stipulated that any license 
applicant or holder who is violating or circumventing State law may be 
subject to the denial or termination of a license.
    A commenter asked APHIS to require that any applicant operating 
under the name of a business disclose the business name in addition to 
their legal name, and to issue the license under the business name. The 
commenter also asked us to require disclosure of not only the names of 
the individual and business applying for a license, but also the names 
of all business associates and relatives involved in the business at 
the time of application and after. Finally, a few commenters requested 
that APHIS add a new field on the application form and require 
disclosure of any names under which the business formerly operated.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The license application form requires that applicants provide any 
previous USDA license number(s) and any active license numbers in which 
the applicant has an interest. In addition, the applicant must report 
any partners or officers, all business names, and locations. Should we 
require additional information, we have the authority under Sec.  2.125 
of the AWA regulations to request information concerning the business.
    In proposed Sec.  2.1(a)(1)(v), we required that license applicants 
disclose the anticipated type of animals to be owned, held, maintained, 
sold, or exhibited during the period of licensure and whether these 
include exotic or wild animals. If exotic or wild animals are included, 
we required that applicants provide information and records 
demonstrating they have adequate knowledge of and experience with those 
animals.
    A commenter stated that it is unclear why only applicants intending 
to hold exotic or wild animals need to demonstrate knowledge and 
experience in caring for those animals. The commenter stated that all 
applicants should be required to demonstrate knowledge and experience 
with any species they intend to obtain.
    We agree with the commenter. In establishing regulatory standards 
of care \5\ for all covered animals--wild, exotic, or otherwise--APHIS 
requires that all licensees demonstrate knowledge and experience 
sufficient to caring for their animals, regardless of species, and we 
note there are many ways that applicants can demonstrate this. For this 
reason, we are amending the proposed rule by removing the additional 
information and records requirement in paragraph (a)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The statutory bases for these standards are located in 
section 2143 of the AWA, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  2.1(a)(1)(vii), we proposed requiring license applicants 
to disclose any plea of no contest or finding of violation of Federal, 
State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animal cruelty or the 
transportation, ownership, neglect, or welfare of animals. A 
substantial number of commenters agreed with this provision. We noted 
in the preamble to the proposed rule that the current regulations 
already set forth provisions for the denial of a license for persons 
with animal cruelty convictions and certain other violations of 
Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to animals, and that this rule 
further supports this existing licensing restriction by requiring 
disclosure of such violations on the license application.
    A commenter agreed with this provision and recommended that we also 
require disclosure of animal- or consumer-based legal violations (such 
as illegal import or export of animals or animal parts or products) and 
any licensing denial, revocation, or similar actions taken by any 
State, Federal, or local authority for activity relating to animal 
husbandry or sales. The commenter also stated that any animal cruelty 
conviction or plea, whether incurred during the preceding 3 years or 
otherwise, should disqualify an applicant from obtaining a license. The 
commenter asked that we include these provisions in Sec.  2.11.
    Another commenter supporting disclosure of pleas or convictions of 
animal cruelty in proposed Sec.  2.1(a)(1)(vii) stated that local 
cruelty laws vary widely from one jurisdiction to another and that some 
offenses, such as failure to license an animal or certain tethering 
violations, do not bear directly on animal welfare or constitute 
cruelty. For this reason, the commenter

[[Page 28775]]

suggested that the proposed language for disclosing pleas and 
violations be amended to include only activities like those covered 
under the Act.
    Under Sec.  2.11(a)(5), APHIS will not issue a license to any 
applicant who has pled or been found to have violated any Federal, 
State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animal cruelty within 
3 years of application, or after 3 years if the Administrator 
determines that the circumstances render the applicant unfit to be 
licensed. We will apply this provision if the applicant meets these 
conditions. Likewise, under Sec.  2.11(a)(7), APHIS will not issue a 
license to any applicant who pled or has been found to have violated 
any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to the 
transportation, ownership, neglect, or welfare of animals, or is 
otherwise unfit to be licensed and the Administrator determines that 
the issuance of a license would be contrary to the purposes of the Act. 
In order to make this determination, we require the disclosure of all 
such pleas and violations as required under Sec.  2.1(a)(1)(vii). 
Accordingly, we do not consider it necessary to make changes based on 
this comment.

Locations, Numbers, and Types of Animals

    The current regulations do not require a licensee to demonstrate 
compliance when making changes to his or her animals or locations, 
including noteworthy changes to the numbers or types of animals used in 
regulated activity. This allows a licensee to acquire substantially 
more or different types of animals than what he or she had when the 
license was originally issued. Therefore, we proposed in revised Sec.  
2.1(b)(1) to require licensees to notify Animal Care no fewer than 90 
days before making any changes to the name, address, substantial 
control, or ownership of the business or operation, locations, 
activities, and number or type of animals described in Sec.  2.1(b)(2). 
After the licensee demonstrates compliance under the changes and 
fulfills all other regulatory requirements, APHIS would issue a new 
license with a new certificate number.
    A substantial number of commenters supported this proposed 
requirement. Among them, one commenter stated that APHIS should also 
review patterns of small changes not considered noteworthy but which 
could have significant cumulative impact on animal welfare.
    We are making no changes in response to that comment. With respect 
to evaluating facilities, we note and consider any change, regardless 
of size, that may have an impact on animal welfare.
    On the other hand, some commenters opposed the proposed requirement 
for new licenses for facilities that change their operations or the 
type or number of animals they display, claiming that the requirement 
is overly broad and burdensome and would require facilities that make 
even minor changes to their facilities or collections of animals to 
seek new licenses. Many of these commenters supported requiring 
licensees to notify APHIS of a change in regulated activities only if 
the change has an actual demonstrable impact on the normal operating 
procedures of the licensee. Similarly, a commenter representing a 
zoological park stated that the additional regulation of obtaining a 
new license when making a noteworthy change is excessive, as the USDA 
license is for the functioning of the entire zoo and not for one small 
part of a facility that may have a noncompliant issue. Another 
commenter stated that slight changes to regulated activities should 
need no review, and specifically cited riding and feeding animals, and 
animals used in circus and movie work.
    We are making no changes in response to the comments. In developing 
the list of conditions in Sec.  2.1(b) that trigger the need for a new 
license, we considered several factors, including the complexity of 
care the animals require, the varying regulations and standards for 
different types of animals, and the number of animals at facilities. 
Our focus is on requiring facilities to demonstrate compliance when 
acquiring animals subject to different standards or that have special 
husbandry and care needs, or when expanding the size of their animal 
collection significantly from the time of licensure. We believe this 
demonstration is important for ensuring that such facilities maintain 
compliance with the AWA during their period of licensure.
    Several commenters stated that the proposal to require a new 
license whenever a facility makes any change in substantial control or 
ownership is vague and overly broad. One such commenter asked that we 
state more clearly when a new license is needed under this type of 
change.
    We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the proposed rule in 
response to these comments. Licenses are issued to specific persons, 
which is defined in the AWA regulations to mean, ``individual, 
partnership, firm, joint stock company, corporation, association, 
trust, estate, or other legal entity.'' If the ownership of a licensed 
facility changes (i.e., if a new ``person'' or group of persons assumes 
ownership \6\), the new owner would need to obtain a license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ New ownership as described here typically involves the 
facility being associated with a different Internal Revenue Service-
issued Employer Identification Number (EIN). An EIN cannot be 
transferred to another owner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A new license is also required if the ownership structure is 
modified such that it changes who has substantial control of the 
business. For example, the business' ownership model may change from an 
individual to a partnership or corporation, or vice versa. If a 
business is sold to another party, or if the licensee passes away and a 
new owner (including relatives) takes possession, a new license is 
required. Licenses are issued specific to certain activities (such as 
exhibition), so a new license would be required if, for example, a 
breeder wants to begin operating as an exhibitor. Because licenses are 
site-specific, any change in location of the animals also requires a 
new license. APHIS will provide additional guidance on this topic to 
include examples that indicate when a new AWA license is needed.
    A few commenters expressed the view that requiring a new license 
whenever a facility undergoes a change in management is an unnecessary 
intrusion into a licensee's business activities. One such commenter 
said that if any management changes to a facility are necessary, the 
Agency should confine its role to simply requiring advance notice of 
such changes and allow the facility to keep its existing license.
    While a change in ownership would require a new license under the 
proposed regulations, changes in operational management of a facility 
typically would not. Accordingly, we are revising proposed Sec.  
2.1(b)(1) to exclude changes in management as requiring a new license. 
Similarly, a licensee that changes only the name of the business would 
not require a new license, unless the name change is associated with a 
change in ownership.
    Some commenters expressed concerns about the minimum 90-day notice 
that must be given to APHIS before any change is made to the business 
or operation as required in Sec.  2.1(b)(1). The commenters' concerns 
focused on situations where changes to the facility would need to be 
made in a shorter period due to unexpected circumstances such as the 
death of an owner or damages to the facility that affect the welfare of 
the animals held by the licensee.
    We acknowledge that unexpected situations (such as natural 
disasters) can

[[Page 28776]]

arise and note that we have the discretion to suspend enforcement in 
such situations.
    In Sec.  2.1(b)(1), we proposed that any person who intends to 
exhibit any animal at any location other than the person's approved 
site must provide that information on their application in accordance 
with proposed Sec.  2.1(a)(1)(iii) and submit written itineraries in 
accordance with Sec.  2.126. We noted that if the application did not 
provide such information, then a new application would have to be 
submitted and a new license obtained before exhibiting at locations 
other than the approved site.
    A commenter operating as an exhibitor asked us to explain how to 
complete the license application with respect to the location of 
animals. The commenter asked whether licensees should indicate on the 
application that they exhibit at offsite locations and then follow up 
with itinerary filings, or whether each exhibition location would need 
to be listed and approved upon application for the license. The 
commenter stated that it is unfair to require licensees to know their 
entire traveling itinerary for up to a year in advance, much less 3 
years.
    We appreciate the opportunity to clarify how this requirement will 
be implemented. The applicant will need only to specify on the 
application that they intend to exhibit at off-site locations, and then 
follow up with submission of itineraries in accordance with Sec.  
2.126.

Changes to Number of Animals Used in Regulated Activities

    We proposed in Sec.  2.1(b)(2) that licenses will authorize 
increments of 50 animals on hand at any single point in time during the 
period of licensure, and that licensees must obtain a new license 
before any change resulting in more than the authorized number of 
animals on hand at any single point in time. Licensees falling below de 
minimis are still licensed and subject to the regulations unless they 
choose to terminate their license. If they terminate their license then 
later exceed the de minimis level and continue to conduct regulated 
activity, they would need to reapply for a license.
    Several commenters suggested that when licensed exhibitors obtain 
more animals, they should have to seek APHIS approval for the 
additional animals regardless of number.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
In deciding on the range of the number of animals we considered several 
factors, including the impact on compliance and the burdens associated 
with obtaining a new license. We do not believe that a new license is 
necessarily required every time a facility acquires an additional 
animal.
    A commenter recommended that APHIS base the authorized number of 
animals on a relative change in size rather than on a flat threshold of 
50 animals. The commenter added that this determination should be made 
by observing the actual number of animals present during the prelicense 
inspection rather than on the licensee's reporting.
    We are making no changes to the rule based on this comment. The 
rule requires applicants to provide the anticipated maximum number of 
animals on hand at any one time during the period of licensure. This 
number may not match the number of animals on hand during the 
prelicense inspection (although the number of animals on hand during 
the prelicense inspection should not exceed the maximum number reported 
on the application). During the prelicense inspection, APHIS will 
determine whether the animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, and 
locations are in compliance, taking into account the anticipated 
maximum number of animals on hand.
    Another commenter said that our proposal to authorize increments of 
50 animals is arbitrary and does not serve its intended purpose. The 
commenter added that an increase of 50 in one species might require 
very little change in facilities and resources, whereas an increase of 
only a few of another species might completely change the nature of the 
operations. The commenter recommended that APHIS not provide licenses 
for increments of 50 animals, but should instead provide licenses based 
on the anticipated maximum number of animals possessed during the 3-
year period of licensure.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure a licensee's facilities 
are compliant with the AWA regulations and standards for the 
anticipated number and type of animals to be held or used during the 
period of licensure. Not all facilities will have a static inventory of 
animals or have all of their animals on-site for the entire period of 
licensure. For example, a dog breeding facility may have a large number 
of animals over the course of 3 years, but a small number of animals on 
hand at any single point in time. The facility would need to 
demonstrate compliance for the maximum anticipated number of animals on 
hand at any single point in time during the period of licensure.
    A commenter stated that APHIS should clarify the requirements for 
disclosure of the anticipated number of animals to account for 
potential offspring (whether or not there is an intention to breed), in 
order to account for fraudulent disclosures. The commenter cited the 
example of an applicant who has 50 dogs, 40 of which are unaltered 
females, who claims no intention to breed those dogs yet could have 
them produce 40 separate litters of puppies. On the other hand, several 
commenters stated that not all breeding females are used for breeding. 
One such commenter stated it is important to define the term ``breeding 
female'' in a clear and reasonable manner, adding that just because a 
female dog is not spayed does not mean she is a breeding female.
    We note that the prelicense demonstration of compliance would take 
into account the breed of dog, the number of breeding female dogs, the 
projected litter size, and the facility's business model for selling 
and placing puppies and adult dogs who are no longer used for breeding 
purposes. For the purposes of enforcement, APHIS assumes that a female 
dog that is capable of breeding may be bred. If a person uses animals 
for purposes counter to what the license allows, including breeding 
dogs that were indicated during the inspection to be no longer used for 
breeding, we will investigate such instances and take appropriate 
action.
    A commenter stated that APHIS is forcing people to circumvent the 
burdens being placed on them by the Agency and asked, by way of 
example, if there is anything that would prohibit his spouse or child 
from keeping 200 more animals outside the perimeter of his licensed 
facility.
    We note in response that this rulemaking will actually relieve 
paperwork burden and reduce fees for many licensees. To answer the 
commenter's question, we reply that the licensee, or any other person 
using or maintaining animals in such a manner that he or she requires a 
license, is subject to the AWA regulations and any prohibitions 
applicable to the situation described.

Changes to Types of Animals Used in Regulated Activities

    Proposed Sec.  2.1(b)(2) provides that licenses will authorize 
specific numbers and types of animals. Section 2.1(b)(2)(ii) 
specifically authorizes licenses for using animals that are subject to 
subparts A through F in part 3. However, with respect to licenses for 
using animals subject to subparts D and

[[Page 28777]]

F, licenses will separately authorize the use of each of the following 
groups of animals: (1) Group 5 and 6 nonhuman primates, (2) big cats or 
large felids, (3) wolves, (4) bears, and (5) mega-herbivores. We noted 
that these groups of animals would be separately authorized because 
they are potentially dangerous and have unique care needs. We also 
included a provision requiring licensees to obtain a new license before 
using any animals beyond those animals authorized for use under the 
existing license for activities for which a license is required. We 
proposed these changes based on our experience with administering and 
enforcing the AWA, noting that licensees sometimes struggle to achieve 
and maintain compliance after making noteworthy changes to the numbers 
or types of animals used in regulated activity.
    A commenter suggested that APHIS should make it more clear in 
proposed Sec.  2.1(b)(2)(ii) of the regulations that if a licensee 
wishes to obtain any new species, he or she is required to obtain a new 
license.
    We note in Sec.  2.1(b)(1) that licensees are required to notify 
Animal Care no fewer than 90 days, and obtain a new license, before 
making any change in the number or type of animals described in 
paragraph (b)(2).
    A commenter supported the proposed requirement for a new license 
for dangerous and exotic animals with unique care needs, but requested 
more information as to what animals we would include under such a 
license beyond obvious ones such as elephants, big cats, and bears. The 
commenter noted, for instance, that servals are potentially dangerous.
    On the other hand, several commenters opposed the proposal to 
require a new license for each new species acquired, and one such 
commenter recommended that APHIS set up several classes of animals 
based on level of risk and complexity of care. The commenter offered as 
an example a class for domestic and farm animals, a class for small 
exotics, and a class for large exotics. Under this arrangement, the 
commenter suggested, a licensee could acquire any animal from the 
animal class they are licensed for, or any lesser class, without having 
to reapply for a new license.
    We agree that there are other potentially dangerous animals that 
fall under the general standards in subpart F of part 3 that should be 
separately authorized. Accordingly, we are revising our proposed groups 
of animals that require separate authorization as follows: (1) Group 5 
(baboons and nonbrachiating species larger than 33 pounds) and 6 (great 
apes over 55 pounds and brachiating species) nonhuman primates; (2) 
exotic and wild felids (including but not limited to lions, tigers, 
leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, lynx, servals, bobcats, and 
caracals, and any hybrid cross thereof); (3) hyenas and/or exotic and 
wild canids (including but not limited to wolves, coyotes, foxes, and 
jackals); (4) bears, and (5) mega-herbivores (elephants, rhinoceroses, 
hippopotamuses, and giraffes).
    A commenter recommended that we include Category E, marine mammals, 
under the considerations for licensing along with large primates, large 
carnivores, and mega-herbivores. The commenter added that a facility 
that passes a prelicense inspection to house sea lions is not 
automatically prepared to handle orcas, for example. This and other 
commenters also noted that as polar bears are considered a marine 
mammal and bears are listed as a Category F animal requiring special 
considerations, Category E should be listed under the considerations 
for licensing so that polar bears do not fall into a regulatory 
loophole.
    We acknowledge the commenters' concerns but are making no changes 
to the rule on this topic. As a practical matter, marine mammals are 
already highly regulated animals with respect to their welfare and 
species-specific needs. In addition to protection under the AWA, all 
species of marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA), and some are also protected under the Endangered 
Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. These animals include whales, 
dolphins, porpoises, seals, sea lions, walruses, polar bears, sea and 
marine otters, dugongs, and manatees. Polar bears are provided 
additional protection under the International Agreement on the 
Conservation of Polar Bears, an agreement between the United States, 
Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Russia, which is implemented in the United 
States by the provisions of the MMPA.
    One commenter asked if a new license is needed for adding other 
cetaceans if the facility already has one kind of cetacean.
    If the species of cetacean being added is different from the 
species authorized under the existing license, a new license would be 
required in accordance with proposed Sec.  2.1(b)(2)(ii).
    Another commenter asked about the impact of the proposed licensing 
requirement for changes to numbers and types of animals on the practice 
of rescuing and rehabilitating stranded marine mammals.
    Unless the rescued marine mammals are exhibited (see the definition 
of exhibitor in Sec.  1.1) by the rescue or rehabilitation facility, 
there is no impact on such facilities. The animals are regulated under 
the MMPA by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, depending on the species involved.
    A commenter asked APHIS to require more specificity from licensees 
regarding the types of animal they plan on keeping. The commenter 
stated that the categories of animals in part 3 are typed too broadly 
for APHIS to ascertain whether an applicant can properly care for 
particular animals and suggested that APHIS instead require disclosure 
by species rather than type.
    We appreciate the opportunity to make clear that applicants would 
need to specify the anticipated species or common names of animals 
owned, held, maintained, sold, or exhibited during the period of 
licensure.
    One commenter stated that licensees acquiring nondomestic animals 
should be required to indicate the type, weight, and risk factor of the 
animal and that APHIS should confirm that a suitable secure enclosure 
is available to house the new animal. The commenter also recommended 
that the animals have an assigned veterinary clinic.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
During prelicense inspections, Animal Care inspectors assess facility 
compliance with the AWA regulations, which require animals to be in 
good health and have adequate space. Each facility is also required to 
have an attending veterinarian with knowledge of and experience with 
the animals at that facility and a program of veterinary care for those 
animals.
    A commenter stated that if a licensee has acquired animals that 
they are incapable of caring for, this possibility should be addressed 
more frequently than every 3 years. The commenter also questioned why a 
licensee with an excellent compliance history needs to reapply for a 
license every 3 years and reasoned that a simple renewal would be 
appropriate for such facilities and consistent with APHIS' risk-based 
approach. Another commenter asked APHIS to reconsider its proposal to 
require new licenses and prelicense inspections for zoological 
facilities in good standing that make changes to the species or number 
of animals they display. The commenter stated that APHIS' policy 
objectives can easily be

[[Page 28778]]

achieved during the already existing inspection process.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments. 
If a facility is in compliance, the process for applying for a new 
license will be simple, with less paperwork and reduced fees by 
comparison with the current license renewal process. Similarly, 
facilities that wish to add animals to their collection under a new 
license class will be able to do so easily by completing an application 
form, paying the applicable fees, and demonstrating compliance with the 
AWA regulations. During this time, the facility can continue to use the 
animals authorized by their existing license for regulated activity 
with no disruption to business.
    One commenter opposing the rule stated that the number of animals a 
licensee owns is not regulated under the AWA and therefore should not 
be considered in the regulations.
    USDA's authority to set criteria for licensing comes from section 
2133 of the Act, which directs the Secretary to issue licenses to 
dealers and exhibitors upon application and payment of the applicable 
fees, provided that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the 
AWA regulations. The number and type of animals that an applicant 
intends to use for regulated purposes has a direct bearing on 
compliance with the AWA regulations. Moreover, section 2133 authorizes 
USDA to prescribe the ``form and manner'' of applications.

License Fees

    In the ANPR, we asked for comment on what fees would be reasonable 
to assess for licenses. We received a wide range of responses, 
including those from commenters who suggested raising fees as a way to 
discourage dog breeding, as well as those from other commenters who 
asked that we eliminate licensing fees entirely to relieve burden on 
small businesses. Many commenters suggested sliding scales based on 
business size and complexity that would allow APHIS to recover its 
inspection costs. After reviewing these comments on the ANPR, we 
decided to propose amending paragraph Sec.  2.1(c)(2) of the 
regulations by requiring a flat license fee of $120.
    Several commenters responded to our proposed changes to the license 
fees. A commenter said that the USDA has not raised licensing fees in 
30 years and that lowering the fees would be arbitrary, capricious, and 
in violation of several statutory requirements. The commenter also 
stated that current license fees do not cover the cost of issuing the 
license, thus causing taxpayers to subsidize the costs, and asked us 
not to reduce the fees. Another commenter stated that fees should be 
raised to keep pace with inflation and account for the Agency's 
enforcement burdens. The commenter provided data to illustrate that 
annual rates should be doubled to compensate for inflation and stated 
that the lowest fee to be paid every 3 years, when adjusted for 
inflation, would be $180, with the highest being $4,515 for the largest 
facilities. Another commenter stated that the proposed flat fee of $120 
is contrary to the Act because it is inequitable. The commenter cites a 
passage in the Act stating that fees for licenses ``shall be adjusted 
on an equitable basis taking into consideration the type and nature of 
the operations to be licensed,'' and notes that a facility that 
receives $1,000,000 in annual income paying the same fee as a facility 
that receives $10,000 annually is not an equitable fee because it is 
neither ``adjusted'' nor considers the type and nature of the 
operations as required by the statute. The commenter stated that USDA 
should instead scale fees based on the numbers of animals and the 
complexity involved in caring for and inspecting the animals. Finally, 
a commenter stated that APHIS is not meeting the requirements of the 
Independent Offices Appropriations Act,\7\ which provides that Federal 
agencies may set fees that are based on costs to the Government and the 
value of the permit to the recipient, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 31 U.S.C. 9701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We appreciate the many comments we received on license fees but are 
making no changes to the proposed fee. Under the AWA, the Secretary 
shall charge, assess, and cause to be collected reasonable fees for 
licenses issued. Such fees shall be adjusted on an equitable basis 
taking into consideration the type and nature of the operations to be 
licensed and shall be deposited and covered into the Treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts. These fees are not user fees and are not used 
to cover the cost of licensing, inspection, enforcement, or other APHIS 
services. Also, the Independent Offices Appropriations Act does not 
apply to AWA licensing fees, because USDA was granted specific 
statutory authority to assess them.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 7 U.S.C. 2153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the proposed rule, we took into account the type 
and nature of operations to be licensed and conducted a formal economic 
analysis. One alternative to a flat fee that we considered was to 
establish scaled fees, similar to those in the current regulations. 
However, we found it difficult to do so in an equitable way. For 
example, some dealers and exhibitors with small numbers of animals may 
derive significant income from their regulated activities, while other 
dealers and exhibitors with large numbers of animals may derive more 
modest incomes from their activities, based on the types of animals, 
location of their business, business model, and a variety of other 
factors. Accordingly, we are establishing the flat fee of $120 for 
licensure, which represents a fee that is comparable to, or in many 
cases reduced from, existing fees for licensure. In addition to being 
an equitable fee for licenses that considers the type and nature of the 
operations to be licensed, the fee structure allows for more efficient 
and streamlined business processes for Animal Care and simplifies the 
calculation of licensing fees for applicants.
    A lesser number of commenters asked that we consider lowering or 
eliminating license fees, with many noting that any type of fee places 
an unfair burden on smaller dog breeding facilities.
    We disagree with these commenters. While the current regulations 
require an annual license application and fees ranging from $40 to $760 
annually, this rule only requires an application and a flat $120 fee 
every 3 years, which would be equivalent to the current lowest fee of 
$40 (if applied annually over 3 years). Accordingly, we do not believe 
that the licensing component of this rule places additional or undue 
burdens on license holders or applicants and will in fact reduce 
paperwork burdens on them, as well as reduce licensing fees for many of 
them. For these reasons, we are making no changes to the rule in 
response to this comment.

License Denial and Suspension

    In proposed Sec.  2.1(d), we reassigned an existing provision from 
Sec.  2.1(e) stating that any failure to comply with the Act, 
regulations, or standards would be grounds for denial, suspension, or 
revocation of a license as provided in the AWA.
    A few commenters recommended revising Sec.  2.1(d)(1) to read, ``A 
licensee who has a record of affirmative demonstration of compliance 
and is thus eligible for renewal must submit to the appropriate Animal 
Care regional office a completed application form and the required 
license fee indicated in Sec.  2.1(a)(2) by certified check, cashier's 
check, personal check, money order, or credit card.''
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
We have revised Sec.  2.1(d). Licenses are no longer

[[Page 28779]]

renewable, and compliance as a condition of licensure is already made 
clear in other sections.

Demonstration of Compliance

    Although an applicant for a license renewal currently must also 
certify, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that he or she 
is in compliance with all regulations and standards, we noted in the 
proposed rule that the regulations do not require the applicant to 
actually demonstrate compliance during an inspection before APHIS 
renews his or her license.
    Demonstration of compliance as a condition of licensure was 
supported by a majority of persons commenting on the ANPR and proposed 
rule. As noted above, many commenters also expressed support for APHIS 
to require a new license whenever noteworthy changes are made to a 
facility, its management, or its operation, or to the number, type, or 
location of animals used in regulated activities.
    A substantial number of commenters asked APHIS to stop ``rubber 
stamping'' licenses without requiring compliance with the regulations.
    We disagree with this characterization and note that Sec.  2.3 
currently requires that license applicants demonstrate compliance with 
the AWA regulations during an inspection before APHIS will issue a new 
license to them. APHIS also conducts regular inspections of licensed 
facilities under a risk-based inspection system that calls for frequent 
and in-depth inspections at facilities with a higher risk of animal 
welfare concerns, and fewer at those that are consistently in 
compliance. As we noted above, the proposed changes eliminate the 
annual license renewal and require instead passing a prelicense 
compliance inspection to obtain a new license every 3 years.
    Many commenters called for a ``zero tolerance'' approach to AWA 
violations found during prelicensing inspections, regardless of the 
degree of the infraction.
    Both current and proposed Sec.  2.3 require that applicants 
demonstrate compliance with the AWA and the regulations before any new 
license is issued. An applicant failing the first inspection may 
request up to two more inspections to demonstrate compliance. If the 
first inspection reveals noncompliant issues, APHIS will advise the 
applicant of existing deficiencies and the corrective measures that 
must be completed to come into compliance. In the subsequent 
inspection, we verify that the applicant has taken any and all 
prescribed corrective measures. Under this approach, APHIS will not 
issue licenses to applicants with uncorrected deficiencies. 
Accordingly, we see no need to make changes in response to these 
commenters.
    A commenter asked that the USDA put safeguards in place to ensure 
that it does not continue renewing licenses from facilities that it 
knows or should know are not in compliance with the AWA. Citing a 
lawsuit filed by the commenter's organization against the USDA, the 
commenter stated that it would be arbitrary and capricious for the 
agency to renew the license of a facility despite having ``smoking 
gun'' evidence of noncompliance at that facility.
    We are making no changes in response to this comment because this 
rule removes the license renewal process from the regulations. 
Licensees will have to demonstrate compliance with the AWA before being 
issued a license.
    A commenter stated that the proposal is deficient in that it still 
allows a licensee with a history of noncompliances to obtain a new 
license every 3 years as long as they pass the prelicense inspection by 
the third try. The commenter urged APHIS to amend its regulations to 
ensure that facilities with a history of substantial noncompliance, 
during either the prelicense or license periods, are not issued new 
licenses and are prohibited from re-applying for new licenses for a 
period of at least 3 years.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
Under this final rule, licenses are valid for 3 years and applicants 
must demonstrate compliance before obtaining a license. If a previous 
licensee with a history of repeat noncompliances wishes to obtain a new 
license, they would need to demonstrate compliance with the AWA 
regulations before we will issue a license to them. Separate from these 
requirements, APHIS also has the authority under the Act to deny and 
terminate licenses when a person is unfit to hold a license and to 
pursue civil penalties and other sanctions for violations after the 
person is given notice and the opportunity for a hearing.
    Several commenters recommended that APHIS consider creating and 
using a sliding scale or a tiered system of noncompliances for greater 
fairness and accuracy when determining a facility's compliance with the 
regulations.
    Licensed facilities are expected to comply with the AWA regulations 
and standards. USDA conducts regular inspections of licensed facilities 
under a risk-based inspection system that calls for frequent and in-
depth inspections at facilities with a higher risk of animal welfare 
concerns, and fewer at those that are consistently in compliance. USDA 
currently identifies the seriousness of each noncompliance to determine 
the appropriate follow-up action. We are therefore making no changes in 
response to the recommendation.
    One commenter expressed concern that forcing wildlife facilities 
with a history of compliance to apply for a license on equal footing 
with new applicants fails to recognize the experience of many wildlife 
professionals and achievements of superior facilities.
    The purpose of this rule is to ensure that licensees are compliant 
with the AWA regulations. Although an applicant for a license renewal 
under the existing regulations must certify, to the best of his or her 
knowledge and belief, that he or she is in compliance with all 
regulations and standards, those regulations did not require the 
applicant to demonstrate compliance before APHIS renewed the license. 
Based on our knowledge and experience with administering and enforcing 
the AWA and regulations, we are concerned that even experienced 
licensees may sometimes struggle to achieve and maintain compliance 
after making noteworthy changes to their animals used in regulated 
activity. In addition, we have observed licensees who have been 
licensed for many years struggle with compliance because they did not 
have adequate programs for maintaining compliance at aging facilities. 
For these reasons, we believe that revisions to the regulations set 
forth in this final rule are necessary to ensure that dealers, 
exhibitors, and operators of auction sales demonstrate compliance with 
the AWA regulations.
    Several commenters said that USDA is adding terminology to the 
regulations that is not defined in the Act and allows for broad 
interpretation by Agency employees. These terms include 
``demonstrate'', ``unfit'', ``affirmatively'', and ``sustained 
compliance''. One commenter said that Agency inspectors interpret these 
terms unfairly to find instances of noncompliance to the detriment of 
the licensee, resulting in more violations and subsequently more 
elimination of licensees.
    We disagree with the commenters. The terms ``demonstrate'' and 
``unfit'' have been in the AWA regulations for decades, and the terms 
``affirmatively'' and ``sustained compliance'' do not appear in the 
regulations; they are simply used as descriptive terms in this 
rulemaking to help the reader understand the Agency's intent.

[[Page 28780]]

``Demonstrated'' appears in the Act at 7 U.S.C. 2133.
    Similarly, a commenter stated that inspections of zoos are not 
conducted to note those things that meet or exceed compliance. The 
commenter said that any decision about licensing status made about a 
facility based only on noncompliant issues is biased and does not 
consider the state of the zoo overall, which likely exceeds compliance.
    We are making no changes in response to this comment. The AWA 
directs USDA to only issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors that have 
demonstrated compliance with the AWA regulations. Although certain 
aspects of a facility may meet or exceed those requirements, we are not 
authorized to issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors who are not in 
full compliance with the AWA regulations.
    On the other hand, a commenter stated that APHIS should increase 
the frequency and rigor of inspections by examining the full operation 
for noncompliant issues and not limit inspections in any way. The 
commenter noted that in the Animal Care Inspection Guide, APHIS 
distinguishes between full or complete inspections on one hand, and 
focused or limited inspections on the other. The commenter added that 
APHIS should ensure that all prelicense inspections are full rather 
than focused to ensure that licenses are not issued to facilities that 
fail to meet AWA standards as required by 7 U.S.C. 2133.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
During prelicense inspections, USDA conducts full and complete 
inspections of applicant locations, animals, facilities, vehicles, and 
equipment to assess compliance with the AWA and regulations. This 
process is not changing under this final rule.
    Several commenters supporting the proposal disagreed with APHIS' 
use of ``teachable moments,'' which, according to commenters, are minor 
noncompliances discovered during inspections that APHIS does not 
document on inspection reports. One such commenter said that USDA has 
implemented a variety of problematic practices, including not recording 
noncompliant items on any publicly available reports. Another commenter 
claimed that teachable moments were developed to protect regulated 
entities from public scrutiny for their noncompliance and for this 
reason licensing decisions are arbitrary and capricious if based on 
documented inspection reports only. The commenter concluded that the 
USDA should determine whether an applicant has demonstrated compliance 
based on the full administrative record at the time of the licensing 
application.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments 
because what APHIS inspectors decide to document as noncompliances 
during an inspection is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
Furthermore, APHIS inspectors do not use teachable moments for 
prelicense inspections or new site approval inspections. As noted 
above, USDA conducts full inspections of applicant locations, animals, 
facilities, records, vehicles, and equipment to assess compliance and 
applicants must demonstrate compliance with the Act and regulations 
before a license will be issued.
    A few commenters stated that prelicensing inspections should be 
conducted without prior notification of the facility to be inspected. 
One such commenter expressed concern that announced inspections may 
result in the inspector having higher expectations for a facility and 
not properly exercising inspector discretion as referenced in the 
inspection guide. Another commenter noted that unannounced inspections 
are common in other industries such as restaurants.
    We proposed no changes to the requirement that prelicense 
inspections must be scheduled during business hours and at other times 
mutually agreeable to the applicant and APHIS. In addition to 
determining if an applicant is in compliance with the AWA and 
regulations, we wish to note that interaction with APHIS staff during 
the prelicense inspection is the best time for applicants to learn more 
about complying with the regulations. Also, scheduled prelicense 
inspections allow applicants to prepare files for review and make 
personnel available for prelicense inspections.
    Several commenters opposed or questioned the need for a prelicense 
compliance inspection. One commenter stated that APHIS already ensures 
compliance through random inspections as often as every 3 months for 
some facilities, once a year for others, and every 2 to 3 years for 
others. The commenter added that for the small number of facilities 
that are not in compliance, APHIS already has the authority to secure 
compliance through a wide range of enforcement tools. The commenter 
stated that conducting prelicense inspections on top of its existing 
random inspections for its thousands of licensees is a waste of limited 
resources and will strain the Agency's inspection capacity. One 
commenter noted that if he is found to be in non-compliance, he is 
typically provided a certain number of days to correct the problem, 
after which his premises are re-inspected to confirm that the problem 
has been resolved. The commenter asked why these reinspections do not 
qualify as a demonstration of compliance.
    Other comments opposed the prelicense compliance inspection on 
grounds that it is unfair to facilities with good histories of 
compliance. A commenter suggested that businesses with a continuous 
record of compliance should receive fewer and fewer inspections over 
time. Other commenters cited a 2018 Animal Care Impact Report showing 
that high numbers of licensed sites have remained in compliance and 
that there is no significant burden posed by renewing licenses 
annually. Another commenter representing a marine mammal park stated 
that APHIS has reported that 91 percent of the facilities accredited by 
the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums were in compliance 
with the AWA in 2018. Another commenter noted that compliance is 
checked through random inspections and that the current methods are 
successful at ensuring a zoological facility's compliance with the AWA 
standards.
    As we have noted previously, the existing regulations did not 
require an applicant for a license renewal to demonstrate compliance 
before renewing his or her license. The existing regulations also did 
not require a licensee to demonstrate compliance when making any 
changes to his or her animals or facilities, including noteworthy 
changes in the number or type of animals used in regulated activity. 
However, based on our experience with administering and enforcing the 
Act and regulations, we are concerned that licensees may struggle to 
achieve and maintain compliance after making such noteworthy changes to 
their animals used in regulated activity. In addition, we have observed 
licensees who have been licensed for many years may have difficulties 
with compliance because they did not have adequate programs for 
maintaining compliance at aging facilities. For these reasons, we 
consider prelicense compliance inspections important to ensuring animal 
welfare under the AWA and regulations and are adopting the changes as 
we proposed them.
    A commenter recommended that a neutral review team, consisting of 
local or State veterinarians, should be included as part of the 
inspection

[[Page 28781]]

process and review the conditions of both the animals and animal 
housing.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The AWA already authorizes the USDA to cooperate with officials in 
various States and subdivisions as necessary.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 7 U.S.C. 2145(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinspections

    In proposed Sec.  2.3(b), we retained the existing provision that 
an applicant who fails the first inspection may request up to two 
reinspections to demonstrate compliance, but shortened the timeframe in 
which the applicant must request the second inspection, and if 
applicable, the third inspection, to 60 days following the first 
inspection, instead of the existing 90-day deadline.
    Many commenters stated that license applicants should receive two, 
not three, chances to demonstrate compliance with the law during 
prelicense inspections. Several commenters went further, stating that 
two opportunities is excessive with respect to existing license holders 
who should have no uncertainties about what the law requires. Another 
commenter stated that the public comments on the ANPR and the proposed 
rule indicate that licensees are taking advantage of the Agency's 
lenience, using both prelicense and routine inspections as a means to 
learn the animal husbandry standards prescribed by the AWA gradually, 
at the cost of both the animals and taxpayers. The commenter 
recommended that we provide only two prelicense inspection 
opportunities, stating that this would lessen the time and cost burdens 
on the Agency and compel licensees to be more responsive to addressing 
documented noncompliances. Some commenters asked us to not provide any 
second chances to persons whose facilities are not in compliance at the 
initial inspection.
    Our review of Animal Care records indicates that few applicants 
actually require three prelicensing inspections to demonstrate 
compliance, but even those applicants that require three prelicensing 
inspections usually complete the process within 90 days. We encourage 
applicants to establish contact and dialogue with their inspector prior 
to requesting a prelicensing inspection to make sure the facility is in 
compliance. The AWA regulations have long provided for three prelicense 
inspections, and it will not increase our regulatory burden to maintain 
the availability of these inspections. Therefore, we are making no 
changes based on these comments.
    Another commenter expressed concern that there is no deadline for 
APHIS to perform its first prelicense inspection once it receives an 
application for a new license. The commenter noted that this lag could 
cause the license application process to stretch out indefinitely even 
if the facility cannot demonstrate compliance with the AWA.
    Applicants for licenses have a strong incentive to complete the 
prelicense inspection process quickly so they can obtain a license and 
engage in regulated activity. Applicants who fail their first 
prelicense inspection must request their second inspection, and if 
applicable, the third inspection, within 60 days following the first 
inspection. Based on our decades of experience in conducting 
prelicensing inspections, we do not anticipate the kind of delays 
envisioned by the commenter.
    To ensure that applicants can take full advantage of the three 
prelicensing inspections to demonstrate compliance with the regulations 
and standards, we stated in the preamble of the proposed rule that we 
would encourage current licensees to apply 4 months prior to the 
expiration of their license.
    A commenter requested that we require, instead of ``encourage,'' 
reapplication filing 4 months prior to current license expiration to 
allow for a period of up to three inspections within 60 days and 
judicial appeal processing of denials.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
By encouraging rather than requiring reapplication 4 months prior to 
license expiration, we are providing flexibility to licensees without 
changing the requirements for the inspection and appeal processes.
    We proposed in Sec.  2.3(c) that should applicants fail to 
demonstrate compliance during the third prelicense inspection, they can 
appeal the findings of such inspection to the Deputy Administrator 
within 7 days of receiving the report. Should APHIS reject an appeal, 
we would notify the applicant of the Agency's denial of the license 
application. Within 30 days of receiving such notice, an applicant may 
request a hearing to contest the Agency's denial of the license 
application. (Comments on hearings are addressed under Sec.  2.11 
below.)
    Citing animal welfare concerns, a substantial number of commenters 
disagreed with the provision to allow applicants and license holders to 
request a hearing if APHIS rejects an appeal for the third failed 
inspection.
    We are making no changes based on the comments we received on this 
topic. As we noted in the proposed rule, we included this provision to 
afford due process protections for current licensees.
    A commenter recommended that the last sentence of Sec.  2.3(d) be 
changed to state, ``No license will be issued until an affirmative 
demonstration of compliance has been documented that the applicant's 
animals, premises, facilities, vehicles, equipment, locations, and 
records are in compliance with all applicable requirements in the Act 
and the regulations and standards in this subchapter.''
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The regulations already require that applicants affirmatively 
demonstrate compliance before a license will be issued by APHIS.

Forfeiture of Application Fee

    We proposed in Sec.  2.3(d) that if an applicant fails inspection 
or fails to request reinspections within the 60-day period noted in 
Sec.  2.3(b), or if an applicant fails to submit an appeal of the third 
inspection report, the applicant will forfeit the application fee and 
cannot reapply for a license for 6 months from the date of the failed 
third inspection or the expiration of the time to request a third 
inspection.
    One commenter noted that this section indicates the failing 
applicant will forfeit the application fee, but the rest of the 
document indicates that there will no longer be an application fee, 
only a license fee. The commenter asked us to clarify the application 
process with regard to fees, particularly whether the applicant pays 
the license fee at the time of application.
    In the proposed rule, we referred to forfeiture of the application 
fee for failure to pass the prelicensing inspection or to request a 
reinspection within 60 days. However, as we had removed the application 
fee requirement from Sec.  2.1(c), our reference to it was an 
oversight. We intended to refer to forfeiture of the license fee and 
will revise the section accordingly. The applicant pays the license fee 
at the time of application but forfeits the license fee if he or she 
fails the inspections, fails to request reinspections within the 60-day 
period, or fails to submit a timely appeal of the third prelicense 
inspection report.
    One commenter noted that proposed Sec.  2.3(d) does not require 
applicants to complete the inspection appeal process before reapplying 
for a license, nor does it require that they request all three 
prelicense inspections. On the other hand, the commenter noted that 
under proposed Sec.  2.11(b), applicants who have

[[Page 28782]]

pursued all three prelicense inspections and appeals but are still 
denied a license may not be granted a license within 1 year of their 
denial. The commenter stated that if an applicant intentionally fails 
to request additional prelicense inspections and an appeal, that 
applicant may reapply for a license 6 months sooner than a person who 
after several efforts to remedy his or her noncompliances was denied. 
The commenter said that this discrepancy would encourage persons with 
significant noncompliances to forfeit the license fee and reapply 6 
months later, instead of going through the appeals process and working 
with APHIS to address their violations. For this reason, the commenter 
recommended that APHIS change the waiting period for reapplying for a 
license in Sec.  2.3(d) from 6 months to 1 year from the date of the 
failed third inspection or expiration of the time to request a third 
inspection.
    We appreciate the commenter's recommendation but are making no 
changes to the rule in response. Every applicant reapplying for a 
license must demonstrate compliance with the Act and regulations before 
a license is issued.

Duration and Expiration of License

    In the ANPR, we invited and received a range of responses on 
whether we should propose to establish a firm expiration date for 
licenses (3 years, 5 years) and if so, what should that date be and 
why. We noted in the proposed rule that a large number of commenters 
agreed with the example given in the ANPR to have licenses expire with 
the expectation that the issuance of a new license would be contingent 
upon affirmative demonstrations of compliance with AWA regulations.
    In the proposed rule, we included in Sec.  2.5(a) the provision 
that licenses will be valid and effective for a period of 3 years 
unless certain circumstances arise. Consistent with the current 
regulations, a license would not be valid if it has been revoked or 
suspended, or if the license is voluntarily terminated upon request of 
the licensee.
    A large number of commenters agreed with our proposed action to 
eliminate annual license renewals and to require persons to apply for a 
new license every 3 years. However, many other commenters with animal 
welfare concerns considered a 3-year license term to be too long, 
particularly for dog breeders, arguing that 1 or 2 years would be more 
appropriate. One commenter stated that a longer expiration window only 
works to assist the chronically noncompliant facilities in escaping 
consequences for their violations. Several commenters stated that we 
should inspect premises housing dangerous and exotic animals annually 
to verify compliance, and that once every 3 years is insufficient for 
these premises. Another commenter opposing a licensing period of 3 
years stated that such an approach would allow a facility to fall out 
of compliance between prelicense inspections, resulting in dangerous 
conditions for all animals at the facility while the licensee continues 
to have applications approved based on a show of compliance every 3 
years. The commenter asked APHIS to amend its regulations to ensure 
that facilities with a history of substantial noncompliance, during 
either the prelicense or license periods, are not issued new licenses 
and are prohibited from re-applying for new licenses for a period of at 
least 3 years.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments. 
In addition to requiring that applicants demonstrate compliance before 
obtaining a 3-year license, APHIS routinely conducts unannounced 
inspections of licensees, as well as complaint-based inspections and 
inspections in which frequency is based on determination of risk. If an 
APHIS inspector identifies noncompliances during these inspections, we 
may take a number of actions in response to promote compliance, 
including offering enhanced compliance support, issuing official 
warnings and other regulatory correspondence, and pursuing penalties 
and other sanctions after notice and the opportunity for a hearing.
    Many commenters opposed to the proposal stated that APHIS lacks the 
authority under the AWA to set an expiration date on a license and that 
the proposed rule is only an attempt to bring about license removals. A 
commenter asked how APHIS can justify making someone start over in an 
application process for a license for the same facility and animals, 
even though the facility is in compliance and has been for several 
years. Similarly, other commenters stated that placing a permanent 
expiration date on current licenses, then requiring licensees to go 
through the entire initial licensing procedure upon expiration would be 
time-consuming and duplicative. Several of these commenters noted that 
there are current and successful license renewal processes already in 
place.
    As we noted in the proposed rule, all licenses currently have 
expiration dates--they expire 1 year after issuance, and may be renewed 
annually. This rule extends the period of licensure to 3 years but 
requires a license application and demonstration of compliance prior to 
the issuance of a new license. We also noted that the proposed rule is 
consistent with section 2133 of the Act, which prohibits the issuance 
of a license until the dealer or exhibitor has demonstrated that his 
facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary 
pursuant to section 2143 of the Act. Section 2133 of the Act also gives 
the Secretary the authority to issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors 
upon application in such form and manner as he may prescribe, which 
includes the authority to set expiration dates for those licenses.
    Some commenters opposing the rule stated that setting a permanent 
expiration date on a license and requiring exhibitors to reapply 4 
months in advance would cause serious hardships for traveling 
exhibitors. One commenter said that exhibitors would be forced to be at 
their home location in order to have a prelicense inspection, and that 
depending upon their renewal date would incur costly travel expenses to 
return home or to not book exhibits for up to 4 months to accommodate 
this process.
    We are not making any changes to the rule in response to this 
comment. Although we encourage applicants to take full advantage of the 
prelicense inspection process by applying 4 months prior to the 
expiration date of their license, it is not required, nor do we 
anticipate that most applicants will need the full time to complete the 
process. A review of Animal Care records indicates that few applicants 
require three prelicensing inspections to complete the process, but 
even those applicants that require three prelicensing inspections 
usually complete the process within 90 days. Finally, we also note that 
prelicense inspections are scheduled at times that are mutually 
agreeable to applicants and APHIS.
    Some commenters representing zoos and aquariums stated that the 
proposal to require exhibitors to apply for a new license every 3 years 
would drastically increase litigation costs borne by these businesses. 
One such commenter said that by proposing to switch from a system of 
annual renewals to a new license requirement, APHIS is enabling 
litigation from activist groups that disagree with the conclusions of 
APHIS inspectors regarding prelicense inspections and AWA compliance, 
resulting in substantial legal costs for both APHIS and exhibitors. The 
commenter added that APHIS' rulemaking proposal is unnecessary because, 
as the Federal courts have held, APHIS already has ample authority 
under the AWA to bring

[[Page 28783]]

enforcement actions against licensees whose compliance performance 
slips.
    As the commenter notes, APHIS has authority under the AWA to 
enforce the regulations on licensees in noncompliance and will do so as 
warranted. However, we disagree with the commenter and consider the 
proposed changes to licensing to be necessary because the existing 
regulations do not require an applicant for a license renewal to 
demonstrate compliance before renewing his or her license, nor do they 
require a licensee to demonstrate compliance when making any changes to 
his or her animals. APHIS has observed licensees who have been licensed 
for many years struggle with compliance because they did not have 
adequate programs for maintaining compliance at aging facilities. We 
determined that in order to reduce risks to animal welfare and the 
public, licensees should be required to demonstrate compliance and 
obtain a new license to ensure that aging facilities remain in 
compliance. For applicants who have a history of compliance, they 
should be able to confidently demonstrate compliance during the initial 
prelicense inspection, generating a record that will be defensible in 
any subsequent litigation. In addition, APHIS already conducts 
prelicensing inspections for new applicants and risk-based inspections 
for current licensees, and neither our process for evaluating 
compliance nor our goal of ensuring compliance with the regulations has 
changed as a result of the proposal. Substantial changes in litigation 
rates or outcomes are not anticipated. Therefore, we are making no 
changes to the rule in response to these comments and are adopting the 
changes as proposed.
    Some commenters representing marine mammal exhibition facilities 
stated that such facilities are permanently situated and require an 
extensive financial commitment to develop and maintain, and that they 
are inspected and approved by APHIS prior to animals ever residing in 
them. One commenter noted that the consequences of a denial of a new 
license for an existing licensee over what may be a minor noncompliant 
item could be devastating and far-reaching. The commenters asked that 
we reconsider our proposed requirement for new licenses.
    We are making no changes in response to this comment. As noted 
above, we encourage applicants to initiate the application process 4 
months prior to the expiration date of their license to allow them the 
opportunity to take full advantage of the prelicense inspection 
process. If a noncompliance--especially a minor noncompliance, as 
raised by the commenters--is discovered during the initial prelicense 
inspection, the applicant will have two more opportunities to correct 
the deficiency, demonstrate compliance, and obtain a license, thus 
ensuring continuity of their business operations.
    A commenter asked whether the proposed changes would require new 
licenses more often as a facility ages.
    No, the period of licensure will be 3 years for all licensees in 
compliance, regardless of the age of the facility.
    Proposed Sec.  2.5(a) states that licenses will be valid and 
effective for 3 years, with several exceptions. One exception, in Sec.  
2.5(a)(1), is if the license has been ``revoked or suspended pursuant 
to section 19 of the Act.'' A commenter suggested that we add ``or 
these regulations'' to the end of this exception.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The provisions of the rule regarding license suspensions and 
revocations are authorized by section 19 of the Act and its 
implementing regulations.
    In the proposed rule, we removed and reserved Sec.  2.6, which 
contained license provisions. We received a comment about the 
implications of removing these provisions from the regulations. The 
commenter noted that Sec.  2.6 includes the statement that people 
meeting the requirements for more than one class of license are 
licensed for their predominant business. The removed section also 
includes a requirement for both lessors and lessees to be licensed. The 
commenter stated that if this section is deleted, that information 
needs to be addressed elsewhere in the regulations.
    We are not making any changes to the rule in response to this 
comment. The definitions Class ``A'' licensee (breeder), Class ``B'' 
licensee, and Class ``C'' licensee (exhibitor) specify which category 
of license a person should apply for based on their business 
activities. Lessors and lessees that meet the definition of dealer, and 
do not fall under one of the exemptions from the licensing 
requirements, continue to require a license under the AWA regulations.

Temporary Licenses

    We received numerous comments in both the ANPR and the proposed 
rule on the issuance of temporary licenses for those licensees who may 
suffer a lapse in licensure during the relicensing process. We proposed 
in Sec.  2.5(a)(3)(i) to include flexibilities for issuing temporary 
licenses to licensees with histories of compliance to ensure they have 
ample time to apply for licenses and demonstrate compliance prior to 
the expiration of an existing license.
    Substantial numbers of commenters opposed our proposal to grant 
temporary licenses on grounds that they give licensees in noncompliance 
additional time to operate. One such commenter stated that the Act is 
clear that USDA cannot provide for temporary licenses unless it has a 
process through which the facility demonstrates compliance with the 
AWA. The commenter stated that the proposed rule presumably tries to 
account for this problem by authorizing temporary licenses for 
facilities showing a ``history of compliance'' for the prior licensing 
period. However, the commenter said that this ``history of compliance'' 
standard is inadequate because facilities are not required to be 
inspected every year, and noted that the most recent inspection report 
may be over 2 years old by the time the licensee applies for a new 
license. Similarly, another commenter stated that allowing an applicant 
to remain in business based solely on prior inspection reports is an 
abuse of discretion.
    We disagree with the commenters and note that we base 
determinations of compliance not only on the history of compliance but 
on actual inspections. We employ a risk-based inspection system that 
calls for more frequent inspections at facilities with a higher risk of 
animal welfare concerns and fewer inspections at those that 
consistently demonstrate compliance.
    Several commenters opposed to temporary licensing said that USDA 
lacks statutory authority to issue temporary licenses.
    The AWA authorizes USDA to issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors 
upon application in such form and manner as he may prescribe and upon 
payment of applicable fees, provided that no such license shall be 
issued until the dealer or exhibitor has demonstrated compliance with 
the AWA regulations. Under this rule, the Deputy Administrator of 
Animal Care may issue a temporary license that automatically expires 
after 120 days to an applicant whose immediately preceding 3-year 
license has expired if the applicant submits the appropriate 
application form before the expiration date of the preceding license 
and has had a history of compliance with the AWA and regulations during 
the preceding period of licensure. These requirements are authorized by 
the AWA and fall within USDA's authority to issue licenses.

[[Page 28784]]

    Another commenter expressed concern that a temporary license would 
be perceived as an indicator that the facility under temporary 
licensure is somehow inferior with respect to animal welfare, and that 
this could have negative consequences from a business perspective.
    Only licensees with extended histories of compliance with the AWA 
are eligible for a temporary license. APHIS makes no distinction 
between a 3-year license certificate number and a temporary license 
certificate number.
    Several licensees who commented on the rule expressed concern that 
their license could expire before APHIS is able to inspect their 
facility to verify compliance for a new license. One such commenter 
stated that it is unreasonable to believe that APHIS will issue every 
license prior to expiration and asked what would happen in such a case.
    We have considered the implications of issuing new licenses to 
licensees as their licenses expire and how to best address the concerns 
expressed by commenters. Accordingly, we have adjusted the effective 
date of the rule for the licensing provisions and will conduct a 
gradual, phased-in implementation based on license expiration dates for 
current licensees. We believe this approach will ensure that adequate 
resources are continuously available to conduct prelicense and routine 
inspections under the AWA. In the event that the licensee submits a 
timely application and has no noncompliances documented in any 
inspection report during the preceding period of licensure, and APHIS 
does not conduct the prelicense inspection before a lapse in licensure, 
we have the ability to issue a temporary license to that applicant.
    One commenter asked if breeders with lapsed licenses would be 
prohibited from selling puppies until the inspection for a new license 
is completed, noting that such a lapse in operations could result in 
them having puppies that are too old to sell to brokers and pet stores.
    A person without a valid license is prohibited from selling puppies 
or engaging in any other activities regulated under the Act until they 
obtain a valid license. As mentioned above, persons with an existing 
license are encouraged to apply for a new license up to 4 months prior 
to the expiration of their license so they can take full advantage of 
the prelicense inspection process. The Deputy Administrator would issue 
a temporary license as long as the applicant meets the criteria of 
submitting the application for a new license before the preceding 
license expires and there are no noncompliances cited during the period 
of the preceding licensure. A temporary license, valid for up to 120 
days, would be issued.
    A commenter suggested that APHIS consider multiple preceding 
periods of licensure for purposes of granting temporary conditional 
licenses in order to strengthen the possibility that the Agency is 
reviewing an accurate picture of a facility's compliance.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
We believe that a licensee that maintains compliance with the 
regulations for a 3-year period of licensure should be eligible for a 
temporary license in the event of an inadvertent lapse in licensure. We 
note that the temporary licenses are of limited duration and the person 
would need to demonstrate compliance before obtaining a new 3-year 
license.
    One commenter stated that for licensees with a history of 
compliance there is no need for developing new regulations for a 
temporary license process when the current regulation for renewal could 
be amended to accommodate licensees with a history of compliance.
    We are making no changes in response to the rule in response to 
this comment. As discussed above, the existing regulations did not 
require an applicant for a license renewal to demonstrate compliance 
before renewing his or her license. The existing regulations also did 
not require a licensee to demonstrate compliance when the licensee 
makes any subsequent changes to his or her animals or facilities, 
including noteworthy changes in the number or type of animals used in 
regulated activity. In addition, we have observed licensees who have 
been licensed for many years struggle with compliance because they did 
not have adequate programs for maintaining compliance at aging 
facilities. For these reasons, amending the current renewal process to 
accommodate certain licensees would not achieve the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance as a condition of licensure.
    One commenter suggested that a license extension could be allowed 
in the case of a natural disaster, or when a licensee has submitted the 
required paperwork at least 3 months in advance of expiration and whose 
past inspections documented no noncompliances.
    We agree that a temporary license may be issued to an applicant 
whose immediately preceding 3-year license has expired if the person 
submitted the application form before the expiration date of a 
preceding license and the applicant had no noncompliance with the AWA 
and regulations documented in an inspection report during the preceding 
period of licensure. We do not limit the causes for the inadvertent 
lapse, and one such cause could be a natural disaster.
    A commenter asked whether ``an'' should actually be ``any'' in 
Sec.  2.5(a)(3)(i)(B). The commenter pointed out that the way the 
proposed provision is worded, if an applicant had one inspection report 
with no instances of noncompliance, he or she would qualify, even if he 
or she had two others with critical noncompliances.
    We agree with this comment and have corrected the wording 
accordingly.
    The same commenter observed that in proposed Sec.  2.5(a)(4), there 
``will not be a refund of the license fee if a license is denied, 
terminated, suspended, or revoked prior to its expiration date,'' but 
noted that this language refers to a license fee, not an application 
fee. The commenter suggested adding ``or'' after ``denied'' in that 
sentence, explaining that a license cannot be denied prior to its 
expiration date because there is no expiration date (i.e., no license 
to expire) if the license is denied.
    We agree that adding ``or'' after ``denied'' will clarify the 
sentence and have made that change in this final rule. As noted above, 
this final rule removes the application fee, so we are making no other 
changes in response to this comment.

Suspensions and Revocations

    In the ANPR, we asked for comment on whether persons whose license 
has been suspended or revoked should be prohibited from engaging in 
other activities involving animals regulated under the AWA, such as 
working for other AWA-regulated entities or using other individual 
names or business entities to apply for a license. We also asked for 
comment on whether such prohibitions should extend to officers, agents, 
and employees of persons with suspended or revoked licenses. A majority 
of persons commenting on the ANPR expressed strong support for the 
suggested regulatory provision for license applicants to disclose 
incidences of violations and convictions involving animal-related laws. 
Persons commenting on the proposed rule also supported disclosure of 
violations and ``no contest'' pleas as a requirement.
    We proposed in Sec.  2.9 that any person who has been or is an 
officer, agent, or employee of a licensee whose license has been 
suspended or revoked and who was responsible for or participated in

[[Page 28785]]

the activity upon which the suspension or revocation was based will not 
be licensed, or registered as a carrier, intermediate, handler, 
exhibitor, or research facility within the period during which the 
order of suspension or revocation is in effect.
    A commenter stated that additional language is required to address 
the cited licensees' family members who may not fall under the legal 
definition of employee, agent, or officer.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
Family members who are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee and 
who are responsible for or participated in the activity upon which the 
suspension or revocation was based would fall within the meaning of an 
``agent'' and be subject to this provision.
    A commenter representing an animal welfare advocacy organization 
suggested that the Welfare of Our Friends Act, or WOOF Act, which would 
amend the AWA to prohibit the issuance of licenses to immediate family 
members and business partners of animal dealers who had their licenses 
revoked, provides clear and unambiguous language that should be used in 
this proposed provision.
    The WOOF Act is proposed legislation and has not been enacted. The 
authority for this final rule is the AWA. We note that Sec.  2.9 
already covers immediate family members and business partners of animal 
dealers who may have been officers, agents, or employees of the 
licensee. If these persons have not participated in the activity upon 
which the order of revocation or suspension was based, APHIS has no 
grounds to deny them a license. Therefore, we believe that the proposed 
rule language is sufficient and are making no changes to the rule in 
response to this comment.
    One commenter supported this provision but recommended carving out 
exceptions for those with specialized skills but may not have been 
directly involved in prior violations of the AWA, when their talents 
are needed due to lack of other qualified individuals.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
If a person was not responsible for or did not participate in the 
activity upon which the suspension or revocation was based, this 
provision would not apply to them.
    A commenter agreed with the proposed provision in Sec.  2.9 to deny 
licenses to officers, agents, and employees of a licensee whose license 
has been suspended or revoked and who was responsible for or 
participated in the activity upon which the suspension or revocation 
was based. The commenter said that APHIS has the authority to interpret 
what constitutes ``participation,'' such that if an officer, agent, or 
employee somehow promoted, aided in, or acted in furtherance of the 
adverse activity, without actually participating in the violation, 
APHIS may still prevent that person from getting their own license when 
appropriate. To underscore this point, the commenter encouraged APHIS 
to strengthen Sec.  2.9 by assessing each participant's non-eligible 
period on a case-by-case basis and based on their personal history, 
with the possibility of that non-eligible period for that person 
extending past the original licensee's period of suspension or 
revocation.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to the comment. 
Periods of suspension and revocation are assessed by USDA 
administrative law judges after notice and opportunity for a hearing, 
or through a settlement agreement. We do note that revocation is 
permanent, so the period of revocation is a person's lifetime. 
Accordingly, there is no longer period of time that could be assessed 
for the revocation of a license. In addition, APHIS is authorized to 
deny a new license when an applicant has been determined to be unfit by 
the Secretary as stated in Sec.  2.11(a)(5) of the amended regulations.
    A commenter stated that APHIS must ensure that existing licensees 
cannot add, as an additional location on that license, a facility or 
site associated with a revoked or suspended license, and that a 
licensee who seeks to do so should not be found eligible for a new 
license.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
As noted above, licenses are issued to specific persons, and are issued 
for specific activities, animals, and approved sites. Under proposed 
Sec.  2.1(b)(1), if an existing licensee in good standing seeks to 
acquire an additional location, he or she would first need to notify 
APHIS-Animal Care no fewer than 90 days before the change and obtain a 
new license. We note that seeking to add a location associated with a 
license revocation or suspension is not in itself grounds for denying a 
license to a person seeking such a location, but rather depends on the 
specific terms of a suspension or revocation associated with a 
location. These terms are contained in orders issued by administrative 
law judges or settlement agreements entered into by APHIS and involved 
persons.
    A commenter opposing the rule stated that this provision violates 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, as the government cannot prevent 
employers from hiring who they wish to employ.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Act is the act which gives the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission authority to sue in Federal courts 
when it finds reasonable cause to believe that there has been 
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or 
national origin. This rule in no way discriminates based on these 
factors.

Licensees Whose Licenses Have Been Suspended or Revoked

    In the proposed rule, we revised Sec.  2.10 to strengthen 
prohibitions against licensees whose licenses have been suspended or 
revoked from engaging in AWA-regulated activities.
    Several commenters asked that APHIS prevent persons with histories 
of noncompliance from playing a ``shell game'' of applying for new 
licenses under different names or businesses.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
Licenses are issued to specific persons for specific premises. If a 
person (for example, a corporation) dissolves and forms a new legal 
entity, the person must apply for a new license. We believe this 
commenter is concerned about a licensee with a suspended or revoked 
license applying for a new license under a new name in order to work 
around sanctions and resume operations. However, a person may be held 
liable for violations and subject to penalties and other sanctions, 
even if they no longer hold a license, or hold a license in a different 
name.
    Section 2.10(c) states that persons with suspended or revoked 
licenses shall not buy, sell, transport, exhibit, or deliver for 
transportation, any animals during the period of suspension or 
revocation. A few commenters recommended that we add ``maintain'' to 
the list of prohibited actions.
    The maintenance of animals on the property of a licensee whose 
license is suspended or revoked depends on the specific terms of a 
suspension or revocation. These terms are contained in orders issued by 
administrative law judges or settlement agreements entered into by 
APHIS and involved persons. We are therefore making no changes to the 
rule in response to this comment.

Denial of License Application

    In the proposed rule, we discussed responses to the ANPR from many 
commenters expressing support for streamlining procedures for denying, 
terminating, and summarily suspending a license. In proposed Sec.  
2.11(a), we

[[Page 28786]]

added several grounds for denying a license to an applicant, including 
failure to comply with the Act or regulations, license suspension or 
revocation, a no contest plea or violation of laws or regulations 
pertaining to animal cruelty, or false statements to USDA pertaining to 
animal welfare. A license may also be denied if the Administrator 
determines that circumstances render the applicant unfit to be licensed 
or if issuance of a license would be contrary to the purposes of the 
AWA.
    A commenter stated he does not support streamlining the procedures 
for denying a license application, terminating a license, and summarily 
suspending a license. The commenter asked if there is an official 
definition for ``streamlining'' and whether it actually involves 
revoking a license without due process.
    The AWA and this final rule provide ample due process to persons 
whose license has been denied, terminated, summarily suspended, and 
revoked. For example, a person whose license has been revoked was 
provided with the opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, we are making 
no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    A commenter proposed that APHIS should automatically deny licenses 
to applicants who have three or more direct or critical violations 
during the prior 3-year period, or have five or more repeat violations 
during the prior 3-year period, as defined in the Animal Welfare 
Inspection Guide. The commenter stated that whatever standard APHIS 
adopts, it should result in automatic denial of license applications 
from facilities that have accumulated dozens of repeat violations that 
affect animal welfare over the last 3-year period. The commenter 
additionally suggested that if a State license was denied or rescinded 
then the USDA license should be denied or rescinded as well.
    We believe the commenter is referring to noncompliances rather than 
violations, as noncompliances are based on the observations and 
professional judgments of inspectors. Section 2.11(a)(7) does provide 
grounds for denying a license if an applicant is determined to be unfit 
to be licensed and the Administrator determines that the issuance of a 
license would be contrary to the purposes of the Act. However, we 
realize that not every noncompliance occurring during a previous period 
of licensure makes a person unfit to hold a license. For this reason, 
we are making no changes to the rule based on these comments.
    In proposed Sec.  2.11(a)(5), we conformed with the proposed 3-year 
period of licensure the length of time during which an applicant shall 
be denied a license due to a nolo contendere (no contest) plea or 
finding of a violation of any Federal, State, or local laws or 
regulations pertaining to animal cruelty. We also continued to retain 
the proviso that a license may also be denied for such violations after 
3 years if the Administrator determines that the circumstances render 
the applicant unfit to be licensed.
    A commenter said that the proposal does not go far enough to 
prevent convicted animal abusers from continuing to abuse animals and 
recommended that we deny an application if the applicant or licensee 
has been convicted of an animal welfare related law during the previous 
10 years.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment 
because proposed Sec.  2.11(a)(5) already provides APHIS with the 
authority to deny a license if the applicant has been found to have 
violated animal cruelty laws within 3 years of application, as well as 
after 3 years if the Administrator determines the circumstances render 
the applicant unfit to be licensed.

Appeal of License Denial

    We proposed in Sec.  2.11(b) to allow an applicant without a 
license whose initial application has been denied to request a hearing 
for the purpose of showing why the application for license should not 
be denied. Should the denial be upheld, we proposed that the applicant 
may again apply for a license 1 year from the date of the final order 
denying the application. We also proposed allowing an applicant who 
holds a valid license at the time he or she submitted the application 
that has been denied, and who submitted a timely appeal of the 
inspection findings from the third prelicense inspection as indicated 
in Sec.  2.3, to request an expedited hearing before a USDA 
Administrative Law Judge, with the license remaining in effect until an 
initial decision is rendered. We noted in the proposal that this 
provision is intended to afford adequate due process protections to 
current license holders, while maintaining proper regard for the policy 
of Congress to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals covered 
under the Act.
    A commenter noted that the USDA's administrative law judge system 
is overburdened and can take years to resolve AWA matters, and 
suggested that the USDA not provide hearings for the denial of license 
applications but adopt informal hearing standards similar to those for 
license suspension and revocation. The commenter added that informal 
hearings would further the purposes of the AWA and reduce regulatory 
burdens. Other commenters stated that the provision to allow licensees 
whose applications have been denied to seek a hearing will only prolong 
animal suffering and delay justice, and added that the law does not 
require that they receive a hearing. One such commenter stated that the 
AWA does not call for a hearing ``on the record'' and contains no other 
language that would trigger the Administrative Procedure Act's formal 
adjudication requirements. Other commenters stated that licensees 
already have many opportunities to challenge and correct findings of 
noncompliance without having to resort to a hearing.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments. 
As noted above, we believe the provisions will provide due process 
protections, and are actually similar to those for license termination, 
suspension, and revocation, which also require notice and the 
opportunity for a hearing before a license can be terminated, 
suspended, or revoked.
    A commenter asked APHIS to revise the language in 9 CFR part 4, 
``Rules of Practice Governing Proceedings Under the Animal Welfare 
Act,'' to reflect the full authority given to the Secretary by the AWA 
and develop and implement a process for promptly providing a notice and 
opportunity for a hearing so additional suspensions can be instituted 
more quickly. The commenter noted that while the Act provides the 
Secretary with the authority to temporarily suspend a license for up to 
21 days and after notice and opportunity for a hearing to suspend the 
license for an additional period, the current language in part 4, 
subpart B, of the regulations only refers to a temporary 21-day 
suspension and not to the possibility of extending that suspension. The 
commenter also asked us to review our stipulation process under 
``Subpart B--Supplemental Rules of Practice,'' to determine whether 
agreed upon license forfeitures would help ensure compliance and animal 
welfare.
    We appreciate the commenter's request but are making no changes in 
response. We proposed no changes to the regulations in part 4 or to the 
USDA's Rules of Practice governing administrative enforcement 
proceedings. Therefore, this comment falls outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    A commenter stated that the last line of proposed Sec.  
2.1(b)(2)(ii), which states that ``a licensee must obtain a new

[[Page 28787]]

license before using any animal beyond those animals authorized under 
the existing license,'' needs to be clarified.
    We agree with the commenter that this provision could more clearly 
communicate our intent, which is that licensees who wish to use animals 
not authorized on their license will need to obtain a new license 
before additional types or numbers of animals may be used for regulated 
purposes. Accordingly, we are amending the last line of Sec.  
2.1(b)(2)(ii) to read ``A licensee must obtain a new license before 
using any animal beyond those types or numbers of animals authorized 
under the existing license.'' Similarly, we are amending proposed Sec.  
2.1(b)(1) to clarify that licenses are issued for specific types and 
numbers of animals.
    One commenter stated that the right of appeal for persons in 
noncompliance with the AWA regulations is based on an erroneous 
interpretation of the law and the Constitution. The commenter 
questioned our statement in the proposed rule that allowing licensees 
whose renewal applications are denied for failure to demonstrate 
compliance to keep their licenses pending a formal hearing affords 
``constitutionally mandated due process protections.''
    As we noted in the proposed rule, the right to a hearing is 
intended to afford due process protections to current license holders, 
while ensuring the humane care and treatment of covered animals in 
accordance with the AWA. By providing licensees with the opportunity to 
appeal a noncompliance documented on an inspection report, we are able 
to consider facts that may not have been available to the inspector at 
the time of inspection and therefore to ensure that the USDA has all 
available information.
    Several commenters asked that we revoke the license of a person 
during any ongoing appeals process. One such commenter stated that 
animals should not be permitted to remain with their custodian when 
that person has violated health and care requirements, and should be 
sent to a sanctuary instead.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment, 
as a license can only be revoked after notice and opportunity for a 
hearing. A license remains in effect until its expiration date or a 
final decision is rendered by an administrative law judge. We do note 
that USDA has separate authority to confiscate animals that are in a 
state of suffering, after notifying the licensee and providing him or 
her the opportunity to correct the condition.

Termination of License

    Proposed Sec.  2.12 states that, after a hearing, a license may be 
terminated at any time for any reason that a license application may be 
denied pursuant to Sec.  2.11. We proposed to remove a reference to the 
license renewal process in the current regulations because the renewal 
option no longer exists.
    A commenter expressed concern that under proposed Sec.  2.12, a 
teachable moment reported as an instance of noncompliance could result 
in license termination. The commenter added that although there are 
judicial safeguards in the process, terminating a license under those 
circumstances would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Instead, the 
commenter recommended amending Sec. Sec.  2.1(d) and 2.12 to 
specifically exempt minor instances of noncompliance as the basis of a 
license revocation unless they are repeated.
    Section 2.11(a)(7) provides grounds for denying a license if an 
applicant is determined to be unfit to be licensed and the 
Administrator determines that the issuance of a license would be 
contrary to the purposes of the Act. However, as the commenter notes, 
APHIS inspectors do engage in teachable moments with licensees, in 
which inspectors point out minor noncompliances and explain how they 
can be corrected. Current and proposed procedures do not require 
termination of a license for these minor noncompliances. For this 
reason, we see no need to change the regulations as requested by the 
commenter.

Appeal of Inspection Report

    In proposed Sec.  2.13, we noted that any licensee or registrant 
may appeal inspection findings in an inspection report to the Deputy 
Administrator within 21 days of the date the licensee or registrant 
received the inspection report.
    One commenter, while not opposed to this provision, suggested that 
when a licensee's inspection appeal is successful, the public has the 
right to know the nature of the disputed violation and that an appeal 
was undertaken. Accordingly, the commenter stated that APHIS should 
include assurances that we will publicly disclose that the findings in 
an inspection report have been appealed. Additionally, the commenter 
stated that all inspection reports that are corrected based on appeals 
must be properly labeled as such and shared with the public.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment 
because it falls outside the scope of this rulemaking. Separate Federal 
laws govern the release of information and documents to the public that 
are controlled by the U.S. Government, such as the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA).
    Another commenter observed that Sec.  2.13 provides a right to a 
licensee or applicant to appeal the individual findings within an 
inspection report distinct from an applicant's ability to appeal a 
denial of their license. The commenter expressed concern that some 
applicants may perceive these rights not separately but as an 
additional step within the appeals process, allowing them to appeal 
inspection findings and delay the license denial process. The commenter 
suggested that APHIS add language to Sec.  2.13 stating that, ``Under 
no circumstances shall this section be interpreted as tolling the 
period of time by which a licensee or license applicant must seek an 
appeal or request further prelicense inspections.''
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The procedures for appealing an inspection report and requesting a 
hearing in connection with the denial of a license are distinctly 
separate processes.

Publication of Licensee Information

    We proposed to amend Sec.  [thinsp]2.38, ``Miscellaneous,'' by 
eliminating the statement in paragraph (c) that we will publish lists 
of research facilities in the Federal Register and replacing it with 
the statement that we will publish such lists on the APHIS website 
instead.
    A few commenters agreed with our proposal to publish the lists of 
research facilities online but suggested that APHIS emphasize in the 
regulations that the lists will be available on its website.
    We believe the rule is sufficiently clear that the lists will be 
published on APHIS' website and that copies of the lists can also be 
obtained upon request from the Deputy Administrator. Therefore, we are 
making no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    One commenter disagreed with our proposal to remove the statement 
that APHIS will publish lists of research facilities in the Federal 
Register and stated that APHIS is making it difficult to locate the 
lists.
    It is not APHIS' intent to make the lists difficult to locate. 
Indeed, we believe making the lists available on our website \10\ makes 
them easier to find. As is currently the case, interested parties may 
continue to request the list from the Deputy Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28788]]

    We also proposed to amend Sec.  [thinsp]2.127, ``Publication of 
names of persons subject to the provisions of this part,'' by replacing 
``names'' in the section heading with ``lists,'' and by removing the 
statement that the list will be published in the Federal Register. We 
are making these changes to reflect current business practices of 
publishing information on public websites for ease of access as well as 
our practice of maintaining and updating a list of registered research 
facilities on the APHIS website.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Substantial numbers of commenters expressed concern about Agency 
transparency with respect to making the names of licensees, breeders, 
and research facilities available to the public, and many asked that we 
ensure that licensee records are available for public review. Some 
commenters opposed the proposed change to Sec.  2.127, which would 
strike ``names'' and replace it with ``lists.'' One such commenter 
stated that the term ``lists'' is ambiguous and does not express how, 
if at all, the Agency intends to identify registrants or licensees.
    As noted above, APHIS maintains a list of licensees and registrants 
on its website. By replacing the word ``names'' with ``lists,'' we are 
making clear that the list may include additional information beyond 
just the name of the licensee and registrant, such as the city and 
State where they are located and the type of license or registration 
that person holds. We are therefore making no changes to the rule in 
response to this comment.
    One commenter stated that the final rule should expressly state 
what licensee information the USDA will share with the public. Another 
commenter requested that APHIS continue to publish identifying 
information for all persons licensed or registered under the AWA, 
including the following: Certificate/customer type, legal name, doing 
business as (DBA) name, city, and State, and to affirm this in Sec.  
2.127.
    APHIS is undertaking this change to reflect both current business 
practices of publishing information using public websites for ease of 
access, and the Agency's practice of maintaining and regularly updating 
a list of registered research facilities on the APHIS website. 
Currently, APHIS lists the legal name of the licensee or registrant, 
any DBA name associated with that person, the city and State where they 
are located, and the type of license or registration the person holds. 
Therefore, we are making no changes in response to these comments.
    A commenter asked APHIS to include in its publication a disclosure 
requirement for all ``formerly known as'' names associated with an 
existing licensee or registrant to ensure full transparency. The 
commenter, representing an animal welfare organization, added that it 
is necessary to have access to unredacted inspection reports so the 
organization can follow up on complaints and incidents and determine 
whether APHIS has identified specific animal care deficiencies at such 
locations.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
We publish the list of licensees and registrants so that the public can 
know who currently holds a license or registration under the AWA. 
Whether a person previously held a license, and what name they held 
that license under, is immaterial to this purpose. Members of the 
public can request inspection reports under FOIA by submitting a 
request online at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/resources/foia/ct_how_to_submit_a_foia_request. All releases of information are 
subject to applicable FOIA laws and appropriate handling of protected 
personal information. APHIS releases information that meets all 
appropriate FOIA and protected personal information restrictions.
    A commenter asked that we use and retain a permanent identifying 
number for each regulated entity regardless of issuance of a new or 
subsequent license. The commenter stated that use of an assigned number 
not publicly linked to any other identifying information will mitigate 
any concerns the USDA has about maintaining privacy interests. The 
commenter stated that this number should be included on all publicly 
released AWA-related records in order to allow public monitoring of the 
USDA's implementation of the Act, including the ability to track 
whether the USDA is following its own inspection and enforcement 
policies.
    This comment pertains to APHIS' internal business processes and is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, we are making no 
changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    A commenter asked the USDA to stop redacting licensee identities 
and withholding records about enforcement actions and adjudication 
proceedings. The commenter said that the public cannot determine 
whether USDA is complying with the licensing requirements if it redacts 
licensee information from inspection reports. Another commenter stated 
that APHIS needs to ensure that the additional licensee information 
required by the rule will be made public in accordance with the 
precedent the Agency itself persuaded the D.C. Circuit to establish in 
Jurewicz v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 714 F. 3d 1326 (2014).
    Public access to records held and maintained by the U.S. Government 
is outside the scope of this rulemaking, but all released records meet 
all applicable FOIA and personally identifiable information 
restrictions. Therefore, we are making no changes to the rule in 
response to this comment.

Importation of Live Dogs

    We proposed to amend the regulations for importing live dogs in 
Sec. Sec.  2.150 through 2.153 in order to harmonize the regulations 
with the AWA and emphasize that dogs intended for resale for research 
purposes, or dogs intended for resale following veterinary treatment, 
must be imported under a permit and accompanying certifications.
    Several commenters stated, without providing specifics, that APHIS 
should restrict importation of dogs because imported dogs carry exotic 
diseases.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
APHIS does restrict the importation of dogs for resale purposes to 
ensure they are in good health, vaccinated, and meet the minimum age 
requirement established in the AWA.
    One commenter stated that the proposed changes will increase the 
vulnerability of live dogs imported for the purposes of 
experimentation. Specifically, the commenter stated that removal of the 
word ``research'' from Sec. Sec.  2.150(a) and 2.151(a) would exempt 
from import permit requirements those research entities with foreign 
sites that import their own live dogs into the United States, without 
reselling them, for the purpose of research. The commenter cited 
instances of research companies obtaining animals from other countries 
with weak records of animal welfare and stated that, under our proposed 
changes, they could import dogs from their facilities in other 
countries to use in their testing facilities in the United States 
without securing a permit from the USDA or preparing certifications. 
Similarly, a commenter stated that APHIS has provided no reasoning for 
why this recordkeeping requirement is proposed to be removed for dogs 
imported for research or veterinary treatment without subsequent sale 
and noted that it is important that all dogs imported for research or 
veterinary treatment are accompanied by a permit and certificate of 
veterinary health to prevent the spread of disease.

[[Page 28789]]

    We are making no changes to the rule in response to these comments. 
These changes will harmonize the regulations with the Act and make 
clear that dogs intended for resale for research purposes, or dogs 
intended for resale following veterinary treatment, are imported with 
an import permit and accompanying certifications, except as provided in 
Sec.  2.151(b).

Animal Health and Husbandry Standards

Watering

    We indicated in the proposed rule that we were considering adding 
various provisions pertaining to the care of dogs in part 3, 
particularly in relation to housing and access to water. We noted that 
the current regulations require dogs that do not have continual access 
to water must be offered water not less than twice daily for at least 1 
hour each time. While lack of continual access to water is generally 
not a risk to healthy dogs, lack of access to water may exacerbate 
health problems when other stresses are present, such as high heat or 
illness. We considered amending the AWA regulations to account for 
specific watering needs for certain dogs, short of requiring that all 
dogs have 24-hour access to potable water for their well-being. 
However, in examining the issues and accounting for the animal health 
and well-being factors involved, we determined that the most prudent 
approach would be to include such a provision requiring all dogs to 
have 24-hour access to water. We therefore proposed to amend Sec.  
[thinsp]3.10 to add a provision that requires dogs to have continual 
access to potable water, unless restricted by the attending 
veterinarian.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the proposed rule, we used the term ``continual'' access 
to water to mean constant, uninterrupted access to potable water for 
dogs at all times. However, we are substituting the more accurate 
term ``continuous'' to mean the same thing in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter agreed with ensuring dogs have regular access to water 
but noted that we stated in the proposed rule that a lack of continual 
access to water is generally not a risk to healthy dogs. The commenter 
noted that regulated facilities vary by type, size, and the number of 
animals they maintain. For this reason, the commenter stated that APHIS 
should allow for some flexibility in how licensees, particularly 
smaller ones, make water available to their animals while still 
ensuring they are providing appropriate care.
    The rule requires that potable water be continuously available to 
dogs, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian. The rule does 
not prescribe how the water is made continuously available. With 
respect to flexibility in how water is made available to dogs, 
facilities may use a variety of watering methods to comply with this 
requirement. Most facilities at which the dogs have 24-hour access to 
water use a plumbed automatic watering system. Automatic watering 
systems can be connected either to a central water supply line or a 
holding tank, which then supplies a valve-tipped access point through a 
pump or gravity-fed system. Facilities that do not have an automatic 
watering system may use water-holding tanks filled by hand. Water may 
also need to be hand-carried to outdoor areas that house dogs.
    Another commenter said that there are no data or veterinary care 
requirements described to support this change for healthy dogs. The 
commenter noted that healthy animals will play with water bowls and 
spill water, and that the lack of continuous access to water in those 
cases should not be an instance of noncompliance if the dog is 
adequately hydrated. The commenter added that the health and welfare of 
animals is directly related to their degree of hydration, not to the 
frequency or duration of access to water, and that the requirement for 
continuous access to water for all is therefore an arbitrary regulation 
based on ease of enforcement rather than sound veterinary judgment. The 
commenter concluded that a better approach would be to keep the current 
standard but modify it to require that dogs be adequately hydrated and 
have access to water depending on conditions.
    We are making no change to the rule in response to this comment. 
The rule as proposed will provide dogs with continuous access to water 
so that the dogs can adequately hydrate themselves. We believe this 
standard will be easier for facilities to follow and for APHIS to 
enforce than the condition-dependent alternative proposed by the 
commenter and will ensure the health and well-being of the dogs.
    Several commenters associated with research institutions did not 
consider the change to the watering requirements to be necessary or 
practical. One commenter stated that, according to his organization's 
records, for the past 5 years there have been 6,613 inspections of 
research facilities resulting in 2,029 noncompliant items documented, 
of which only 3 were for noncompliance with the regulations in Sec.  
3.10. Another commenter requested that the Agency document the actual 
need for these expenditures before developing a final rule requiring 
24-hour access to water.
    The commenter correctly points out that a small fraction of 
inspections of regulated facilities result in citations related to 
inadequate watering, although the number cited is lower than the actual 
number for all facilities (there were 11 such citations in FY 2016 and 
2017 alone; in 2017, there were 12,243 active sites). Lack of 
continuous access to drinkable water is generally not a risk to healthy 
dogs, but lack of access can escalate in dogs the health consequences 
of other stress factors. We note that the number of citations issued 
for lack of water access does not reflect the totality of problems that 
are either caused or exacerbated by lack of access to clean drinkable 
water. Ensuring this access will directly benefit those dogs that would 
otherwise have insufficient access to drinkable water.
    Moreover, we also proposed specific veterinary care requirements 
for dogs. We expect that these specific requirements will strengthen 
arrangements between licensees and registrants and their attending 
veterinarians and enhance preventative and ongoing care for dogs. 
Accordingly, we are making no changes to the rule in response to this 
comment.
    Other commenters questioned how water can be provided continuously 
when dogs are being removed from pens for training or cleaning, or 
during transport, and noted that there have already been guidelines 
available for providing adequate water supply for dogs. Another 
commenter noted that requiring 24 hour access to water contradicts the 
current regulations, which allow for the offering of water to dogs 
before, during, and after transport to be determined under a watering 
and feeding plan, which may not necessarily allow for 24 hour access. 
To resolve this contradiction, the commenter recommended that APHIS add 
an exception to Sec.  3.10(a) that states, ``except during transport, 
in which the dog must be offered water in accordance with the standards 
set forth in Sec.  3.14.''
    The transport watering requirements, which do not require 24 hour 
access, are actually detailed in Sec.  3.16 (redesignated as Sec.  
3.17), and not in Sec.  3.14 as the commenter indicated. However, we 
agree with the substance of the comment and will amend Sec.  3.10(a) to 
refer to the transportation requirements in redesignated Sec.  3.17.

Veterinary Care for Dogs

    We proposed to amend the veterinary care requirements for dogs in 
Sec.  [thinsp]3.13. The changes would expand existing regulations in 
subpart D requiring

[[Page 28790]]

dealers and exhibitors to establish and maintain an adequate program of 
veterinary care for regulated animals. The expanded care requirements 
include regularly scheduled veterinary visits, an annual hands-on 
examination, and husbandry requirements to help ensure healthy eyes, 
skin, nails, hair, and teeth.
    We proposed in a new Sec.  3.13(a)(1) to require regularly 
scheduled visits by the attending veterinarian, not less than once 
every 12 months, to all premises where animals are kept to assess 
veterinary care and other aspects of care and use. This requirement is 
expected to be completed no later than 1 year after the effective date.
    Substantial numbers of commenters supported this requirement. One 
commenter supported the proposal but expressed concern about the level 
of oversight required by the attending veterinarian in Sec.  3.13(a), 
noting that it places significant responsibility and burden on the 
attending veterinarian to draft policies tailored to all aspects of the 
animals' lives, despite the veterinarian only being required to visit 
the facility once a year. To ensure that the animals at each facility 
receive consistent and adequate veterinary care, the commenter asked 
that we adopt objective standards for medical, preventative, and 
grooming care to minimize inconsistent approaches to care among 
attending veterinarians. Furthermore, the commenter recommended that 
APHIS add to the regulations the requirement that the program of 
veterinary care be drafted and developed ``in accordance with the 
recommendations of a recognized and objective veterinary association 
like the American Veterinary Medical Association.'' Other commenters 
recommended that APHIS include additional requirements as part of the 
scheduled visit, including pain assessment and body condition scoring; 
an oral examination; special exams for breeding dogs; and 
administration of medications for intestinal parasites, heartworm, 
fleas, and ticks. A commenter also recommended that dogs receive 
preventative dental care, and that specialized procedures such as 
euthanasia and surgery only be practiced by licensed veterinarians 
using widely accepted techniques.
    Some commenters opposed the requirement for scheduling regular 
veterinary visits. One such commenter stated that the imposition of a 
prescriptive program of veterinary care is not consistent with APHIS' 
stated purpose to reduce regulatory burden on licensees because the 
program of veterinary care should be individually tailored to meet the 
needs of the animals being maintained in each facility. Other 
commenters representing research organizations opposed the proposed 
change and urged APHIS instead to consider stronger enforcement of its 
existing standards regarding veterinary care, noting that their 
organizations are rarely cited for veterinary care violations.
    We believe the requirement for regular veterinary visits provides 
an appropriate level of specificity to ensure an adequate and balanced 
program of veterinary care for dogs, and allows for professional, 
individual judgment on the part of the attending veterinarian. Annual 
hands-on physical exams by the attending veterinarian allow for the 
evaluation of factors that could affect the dogs' health, well-being, 
and ability to reproduce. A required husbandry program will help ensure 
the overall health of adult dogs and puppies, thereby preventing 
avoidable disease and injury. Required medical records will help 
facilities keep track of incidents, treatments and progress of care, 
and allow facilities to track individual health trends and the 
frequency of illnesses and injuries for the kennel as a whole. For 
these reasons, we are making no changes to the rule in response to the 
commenters.
    A commenter asked that standards for breeding, socialization, and 
exercise be added to the regulations, as the lack of concrete 
requirements may result in inconsistent levels of oversight among 
attending veterinarians and foster uncertainty as to whether a licensee 
will follow a veterinarian's recommendations for addressing standards 
of care. Similarly, another commenter stated that the veterinary care 
plan should be required to include current exercise and human 
interaction and require greater life enrichment for animals in the 
companion pet industry, as well as placement strategies for dogs after 
breeding age is passed and a cap on the age of maturity for breeding.
    The regulations pertaining to exercise of dogs are contained in 
Sec.  3.8 of the regulations. Because we did not propose any changes to 
these regulations or propose any standards for breeding or 
socialization of dogs, this comment falls outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    A commenter stated that this section should be strengthened to 
require veterinary care for animals, not only for the obvious humane 
reasons, but also so that unsuspecting consumers are not saddled with 
unexpected health problems after purchase.
    USDA is authorized under the AWA to issue standards governing the 
humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals. We 
lack authority to promulgate regulations pertaining to consumer 
protection.
    A commenter stated that APHIS should require that the veterinarian 
signing the program of veterinary care be in good standing with the 
applicable State's veterinary board and has experience working with the 
species at issue.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. 
The AWA authorizes USDA to require licensees to comply with the Act, 
but not veterinarians. We note that Sec.  2.40(a)(2) of the regulations 
requires licensees to ensure that the attending veterinarian has 
appropriate authority to ensure the provision of adequate veterinary 
care and to oversee the adequacy of other aspects of animal care and 
use. The appropriate authority may include but is not limited to 
ensuring that the veterinarian is in good standing with the applicable 
State veterinary licensing board. We also note that the definition of 
attending veterinarian specifies that the veterinarian ``has received 
training and/or experience in the care and management of the species 
being attended.''
    We also proposed in a new Sec.  3.13(a)(2) to require that each 
dealer, exhibitor, and research facility follow an appropriate program 
of veterinary care for dogs that is documented and signed by an 
attending veterinarian, and includes annual physical head-to-tail 
examinations for adult dogs by the attending veterinarian. We proposed 
that these annual examinations be required in addition to existing 
requirements that provide for regularly scheduled visits by the 
attending veterinarian to premises where animals are kept.
    A substantial number of commenters supported the proposal to 
require an annual head-to-tail examination of each adult dog at a 
facility. One commenter recommended that we also require hands-on 
veterinary examinations for any dog showing visible signs of pain or 
distress, emaciated body condition, or other symptoms of potentially 
severe illness or injury.
    The requirements in proposed Sec.  3.13 are in addition to the 
existing requirements in subpart D, which already require programs of 
adequate veterinary care that include the use of appropriate methods to 
diagnose and treat diseases and injuries and direct and frequent 
communication of problems to the attending veterinarian. We believe the 
regulations sufficiently address the attending veterinarians', 
licensees', and registrants' responsibilities for sick animals and are

[[Page 28791]]

making no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
    Some commenters stated that the proposed veterinary examination 
requirement would cause financial hardship on small breeders and noted 
that many stakeholders do not live near an affordable veterinarian.
    We note that Sec.  2.40 of the regulations already requires dealers 
and exhibitors to employ an attending veterinarian under formal 
arrangements and to have programs of adequate veterinary care.
    A commenter stated that it is unclear why the attending 
veterinarian would need to conduct an annual physical head-to-tail 
examination of every dog for what are husbandry issues, when the 
licensee is already required to observe every animal on a daily basis.
    We are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment. A 
physical examination of a dog by a veterinarian may discover health 
issues that a licensee may overlook, as the veterinarian has more 
extensive knowledge and expertise.
    Several commenters stated that it is not clear why APHIS does not 
already have the authority under the current language in Sec.  2.40 to 
assure that such care is provided. The commenter noted that Sec.  2.40 
currently requires that for licensees with a part-time or consulting 
attending veterinarian there be a regular schedule of visits and a 
written program of veterinary care. The commenter said that if APHIS 
finds that the number of visits and written program is not providing 
adequate care, the facility should be cited and given a specific 
timeline to come into compliance.
    Under the current regulations in Sec.  2.40, although a written 
program of veterinary care is required for part-time or consulting 
veterinarians, it is not required for full-time attending 
veterinarians. Similarly, although the veterinarian must conduct 
regularly scheduled visits, there is no requirement for a physical, 
head-to-tail annual examination for dogs. This rule requires that 
dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities keep and maintain a 
written program of veterinary care for dogs, regardless of their 
arrangement with their attending veterinarian, and require annual 
veterinary exams for dogs in addition to the existing veterinary care 
requirements that provide for regularly scheduled visits of the 
attending veterinarian to premises where animals are kept to ensure the 
adequacy of animal care.
    Some commenters opposed a required annual head-to-tail examination 
for adult dogs on grounds that their animals already receive adequate 
care. A few research organizations stated that the proposed requirement 
for the head-to-tail examination will yield no additional benefit and 
result in more regulatory burden. They suggested that APHIS focus 
specifically on those individuals and businesses having a history of 
noncompliance and prevent them from obtaining a license or working with 
regulated animals, while allowing research institutions with strong 
adherence to Federal requirements and excellent veterinary care to 
perform their duties following current accepted practices.
    APHIS believes that physical head-to-tail examinations and 
regularly scheduled visits by attending veterinarians to the premises 
where animals are kept are necessary to ensure adequate animal care and 
use, regardless of the facility's compliance history. To address the 
commenters' concerns, facilities that maintain high levels of 
veterinary care likely meet or exceed the veterinary care requirements 
in this rule, meaning that such facilities likely would not need to 
make any changes to their practices. Therefore, we are making no 
changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    With respect to the hands-on exam, one commenter asked if APHIS had 
considered facilities that exhibit wolf-dogs (an animal that falls 
under USDA dog regulations), noting that most rescued wolf-dogs are not 
able to be handled safely for this type of exam.
    In Sec.  1.1 of the regulations, dog-hybrid crosses are considered 
dogs under the definition of dog. Licensees and registrants with dog-
hybrid crosses must comply with all applicable provisions of the AWA 
regulations. Licensees and registrants should work closely with their 
attending veterinarian to determine appropriate safe handling practices 
for dogs (including hybrid crosses) for hands-on examinations.
    The commenter also suggested that we require licensed veterinary 
certification that the breeding animal is free from detectable health 
or congenital problems which can be identified using accepted medical 
tests appropriate for problems seen by breed, and is certified healthy 
to breed.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern about breeding and breed-
specific problems but are making no changes in response. The veterinary 
exam can determine whether a dog is generally in good health, but any 
additional testing to detect breed-specific issues would not be a 
requirement, but rather a decision by the dog owner.
    We also included in proposed Sec.  3.13(a)(3) a requirement for 
vaccinations for rabies, parvovirus, distemper, and other dangerous 
diseases of dogs.
    One commenter opposed to the vaccination requirements in the 
proposed rule stated that the wording ``contagious and deadly'' used in 
the proposed regulation could be interpreted to mean that a disease 
must be both contagious and deadly for a vaccination to be required. 
The commenter noted that vaccinations are not always innocuous and 
should not be given unless they are needed.
    We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our intent with respect to 
the wording ``contagious and deadly.'' We agree that vaccinations are 
required for diseases that are contagious, or deadly, or both, and are 
amending Sec.  3.13(a)(3) accordingly.
    Other commenters opposed to the vaccination requirement expressed a 
concern that the proposed changes, which include specific vaccination 
requirements, would lead to over-vaccinating of animals. A few 
commenters stated that APHIS, through this rulemaking, is requiring 
them to excessively vaccinate their animals at the expense of their 
dogs being poisoned or having seizures. Another commenter opposed to 
the proposal said that mandatory vaccinations will result in the deaths 
of millions of dogs.
    We are making no changes to the vaccination requirement in response 
to these comments. Vaccinations are a scientifically proven and 
critical component in ensuring the health and well-being of dogs. The 
regulations require vaccinations for contagious and deadly diseases of 
dogs, which expressly includes but is not limited to rabies, 
parvovirus, and distemper, in accordance with a schedule approved by 
the attending veterinarian. We note that there are exceptions to this 
requirement for research protocols approved by the Institutional Animal 
Care and Use Committee (IACUC) at research facilities.
    A commenter noted that the rule allows exemptions from required 
vaccinations for research facilities, but not for dealers, and 
requested that the exemption also be available to dealers who provide 
dogs with higher health status requirements (i.e., unvaccinated dogs) 
for veterinary health research purposes, providing the animals are 
housed in barrier facilities suitable to protect their health and well-
being.
    We noted that vaccinations would not be a requirement if 
contraindicated for health reasons for the individual animal or unless 
otherwise required by a research protocol approved by the IACUC at 
research facilities. Therefore,

[[Page 28792]]

we are making no changes to the rule in response to this comment.
    We proposed also that the veterinary exam address husbandry issues 
for hair coat, toenails, teeth, skin, eyes, and ears.
    A commenter representing a research organization recommended the 
development of clear, objective criteria to standardize what 
constitutes adequate care and subsequently non-compliance regarding 
prevention and treatment procedures for skin, nails, teeth, eyes, ears, 
and hair coat. The commenter expressed concern that USDA inspectors may 
cite noncompliance for the occurrence of early signs of clinical 
conditions that are considered mild and not in need of immediate 
treatment. The commenter asked that guidelines be developed and made 
available to inspectors and regulated facilities in the form of 
additions to the Animal Welfare Inspection Guide, rather than in the 
proposed changes to the regulations, and that they include examples of 
appropriate written prevention and treatment plans.
    The rule requires a written program of veterinary care that 
includes preventative care and treatment to ensure healthy and unmatted 
hair coats, properly trimmed nails, and clean and healthy eyes, ears, 
skin, and teeth, unless otherwise required by a research protocol 
approved by the IACUC at research facilities. An adequate plan would 
address these systems and provide sufficient guidelines on when and how 
the veterinarian will need to be consulted on certain conditions. 
Therefore, we are making no changes to the rule in response to this 
comment.
    We proposed in revised Sec.  3.13(b) to require licensees to keep 
and maintain veterinary medical records and to make them available for 
inspection by APHIS.
    A few commenters stated that keeping a medical record of every dog 
daily would increase their recordkeeping burden.
    The rule does not require a daily medical record for every dog. 
Rather, the rule requires facilities to keep track of incidents, 
treatments, and progress of care, and to track individual health trends 
and frequency of illnesses and injuries for the kennel as a whole.
    Regarding the proposed requirement to maintain animal medical 
records, a commenter questioned whether the language in section 2140 of 
the AWA gives the Secretary the authority to require such records. The 
commenter stated that under the Principles of Veterinary Medical 
Ethics, a veterinarian has a duty to maintain the necessary records to 
provide appropriate care, but does not agree that the AWA requires them 
to be maintained.
    Under section 2140 of the AWA, ``[d]ealers and exhibitors shall 
make and retain for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary may 
prescribe, such records with respect to the purchase, sale, 
transportation, identification, and previous ownership of animals as 
the Secretary may prescribe.'' This section has similar language for 
research facilities to maintain such records with respect to live dogs 
and cats. However, section 2151 grants the Secretary the authority ``to 
promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary 
in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act.'' Moreover, the rule 
places the requirement to maintain the medical records on the facility, 
not on the veterinarian.
    A commenter noted that Sec.  3.13(b)(1), which allows medical 
records for all dogs kept in a group (or herd) to be preserved on a 
single record (without individual identifying marks noted for each 
dog), will likely negate the positive impact of this section as it will 
fail to give inspectors a means of ensuring that all dogs have received 
adequate care. The commenter explained that the justifications for 
allowing group records for animals like cattle, sheep, and deer, do not 
exist in the case of dogs, and that licensees and attending 
veterinarians should be able to safely and productively identify each 
dog. Accordingly, the commenter recommended that we remove the 
``group'' provision in paragraph (b)(1).
    We disagree with this comment and are making no changes in 
response. This rule will allow routine husbandry, such as vaccinations, 
preventive medical procedures, and treatment that are performed on a 
group of dogs to be kept on a single record. All animals on the record 
will have received the treatment or care if they are listed on the 
record. Therefore, we are making no changes to the rule based on this 
comment.

Other Comments

    One commenter stated that USDA should develop and make available an 
implementation plan.
    The plan for implementing the rule includes a 3-year schedule for 
converting the current 1-year licenses to a 3-year new license based on 
the expiration day and month listed on the license. Prior to the 
license expiration date, USDA will notify current licensees of the 
month and date on which their license will need to be converted to the 
3-year license and licensees will need to submit an application for the 
new license. Until the license is converted to the 3-year schedule, the 
licensee must pay a $40 license fee and renew the current license for 1 
year. After the effective date of the rule, new applicants that 
demonstrate compliance with the AWA, regulations, and standards will be 
issued a 3-year license. We believe this approach will ensure that 
adequate resources are continuously available to conduct prelicense and 
routine inspections under the AWA.
    A few commenters stated that USDA should require online education 
classes on compliance that need to be completed by the licensee between 
licensing or annually.
    We agree that applicants, licensees, and registrants need to learn 
about the AWA regulations and how to achieve and maintain compliance 
with them. APHIS provides a variety of learning opportunities, 
including online modules and in person trainings, and plans to continue 
these after the publication of this rule.
    Some commenters expressed concerns that APHIS is understaffed and 
therefore unable to conduct inspections for compliance under the 
existing regulations, let alone new ones.
    We affirm that APHIS has adequate resources for conducting 
inspections to ensure compliance with the AWA. We employ a risk-based 
inspection system that calls for more frequent inspections at 
facilities with a higher risk of animal welfare concerns and fewer 
inspections at those that are consistently in compliance.
    Some commenters objected to allowing members of the public to 
comment on the rule, particularly animal welfare advocates, stating 
that the general public lacks any technical expertise that can be 
offered on these issues. One such commenter representing a wild animal 
preserve stated that only individuals who own animals as their business 
should be voting on changes in regulations with USDA.
    The Administrative Procedure Act, which applies to all agencies of 
the Federal government, provides the general procedures for various 
types of rulemaking. For informal rulemakings such as this one, 
agencies are required to provide the public with adequate notice of a 
proposed rule followed by a meaningful opportunity to comment on the 
rule's content. Accordingly, we are not authorized to limit the 
opportunity to comment to only certain individuals or businesses. We 
also note that comments do not constitute ``votes.''
    Some commenters stated that licensees were not consulted in the 
development of these changes: A commenter stated that ``those authoring 
these proposed amendments did not

[[Page 28793]]

solicit the input of seasoned and respected licensees prior to doing 
so.''
    On August 24, 2017, we published an ANPR to solicit input from 
licensees and all other members of the public on potential revisions to 
the licensing requirements under the AWA regulations.\13\ We received 
over 47,000 comments in response to the ANPR, including comments from 
licensees. After carefully reviewing those comments, we published a 
proposed rule for public comment, to which we received over 100,000 
comments from licensees and other members of the public. We believe 
that we have adequately solicited input from licensees before 
publishing this final rule, and are accordingly making no changes in 
response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 82 FR 40077 (Aug. 24, 2017) and 82 FR 48938 (Oct. 23, 
2017); https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/23/2017-22940/animal-welfare-procedures-for-applying-for-licenses-and-renewals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several thousand commenters asked USDA to end the practice of 
keeping dogs in stacked cages with wire flooring, to ban cage stacking, 
and to require facilities to provide animals with more cage and living 
space. A letter signed by several members of Congress supported the 
rule but also called for the elimination of wire flooring in dog 
enclosures, as well as a prohibition on stacking cages and an increase 
in space requirements for dogs. An animal welfare organization 
commented that APHIS' failure to address wire flooring in the proposed 
rule is unacceptable and APHIS should add a requirement that all 
primary enclosures in commercial breeding facilities have solid floors, 
or flooring that is slatted if the slats are at least 3.5 inches in 
width with no more than half-inch gaps between slats.
    We acknowledge the concerns of the public and members of Congress 
on this subject. However, we are making no changes in response to these 
comments because enclosure flooring and space requirements are outside 
the scope of this rulemaking.
    A few commenters stated that the proposed rule change is contrary 
to the intent of reducing burden as mandated by the 21st Century Cures 
Act, which requires the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration to 
complete a review of applicable regulations and policies for the care 
and use of laboratory animals and make revisions as appropriate, to 
reduce administrative burden on investigators, while maintaining the 
integrity and credibility of research findings and protection of 
research animals.
    The changes to the licensing requirements do not apply to research 
facilities. In addition, the amendments to the veterinary care and 
watering standards are necessary to ensure the humane treatment and 
care of dogs, and are not the kind of inconsistent, overlapping, or 
unnecessarily duplicative regulations that are targeted for review by 
section 2034 of the 21st Century Cures Act.
    Several commenters, without providing specifics, disagreed with the 
rule in that it imposes economic and recordkeeping burdens on breeders. 
One commenter generally stated that the proposed changes are unfair to 
zoos and will burden APHIS with paperwork, enforcement, and legal 
challenges.
    We believe that changes to the licensing fees would not be unfair 
to zoos, but could result in significant savings for many exhibitors. 
Under existing licensing fees, exhibitors pay between $30 and $300 per 
year, with an additional $10 per year renewal application or new 
application fee. The licensees need to submit the renewal application 
each year. Under the proposed and final rule, each licensee pays only 
$40 per year ($120 for a 3 year license) and has to apply for the 
license only once every 3 years. This saves each licensee anywhere from 
$0 dollars (no change in cost) to $780 for an exhibitor with over 500 
animals over the course of the 3 year licensing period. The new rule 
also saves the licensee two-thirds of the time filling out and filing 
the paperwork for the license over the 3 year period.
    We anticipate an increase in animal welfare due to the requirement 
that licensees must apply for a license every 3 years and demonstrate 
compliance with the regulations and standards. Based on our knowledge 
and experience with administering and enforcing the AWA and 
regulations, we are concerned that even experienced licensees may 
struggle to achieve and maintain compliance after making noteworthy 
changes to their animals used in regulated activity. In addition, we 
have observed licensees who have been licensed for many years struggle 
with compliance because they did not have adequate programs for 
maintaining compliance at aging facilities. For these reasons, we 
believe that revisions to the regulations set forth in this final rule 
are necessary to ensure that dealers, exhibitors, and operators of 
auction sales demonstrate compliance with the AWA regulations.
    We received many other comments that made general statements about 
the rule or addressed subjects that are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13771 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule has been determined to be significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is an Executive 
Order 13771 regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this 
final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.
    We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic 
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and 
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety 
effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance 
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of 
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis 
also provides a final regulatory flexibility analysis that examines the 
potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as required 
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is summarized 
below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov 
website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) 
or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    APHIS is making revisions to the licensing requirements to promote 
compliance with the AWA, as well as to strengthen existing safeguards 
that prevent individuals and businesses that are unfit to hold a 
license from obtaining a license or from working with regulated 
animals. Licensees will be required to renew their certification of 
regulatory compliance and pay the associated license fee once every 3 
years rather than every year. In addition, the fee will be changed to a 
flat rate rather than a set of tiered rates. This action will promote 
AWA compliance by requiring that regulated businesses affirmatively 
demonstrate regulatory compliance when applying for or renewing a 
license. It will reduce the license fee for most regulated entities and 
will reduce the compliance paperwork burden for all licensees.

[[Page 28794]]

    APHIS is also amending the veterinary care requirements for dogs 
that are under the care of entities covered by the AWA. Facilities with 
dogs will be required to have an expanded Program of Veterinary Care 
(PVC) that includes annual, hands-on veterinary exams for adult dogs by 
the attending veterinarian and addresses husbandry issues for hair 
coat, toenails, teeth, skin, eyes, and ears. Facilities will also be 
required to create and maintain medical records of preventive health 
care measures and the treatment of ill and injured dogs.
    The expanded PVC will guide the facilities in practicing a minimum 
level of acceptable husbandry and in maintaining records of preventive 
care and the treatment of ill or injured dogs. Annual hands-on physical 
exams by the attending veterinarian will allow for evaluation of 
factors that could affect the dogs' health, well-being, and ability to 
reproduce. Health problems that are detected early could receive timely 
and appropriate veterinary care. A required husbandry program will help 
ensure the overall health of adult dogs and puppies, thereby preventing 
avoidable disease, illness, and injury. Required medical records will 
help facilities keep track of incidents, treatments, and progress of 
care. They also will enable facilities to track individual health 
trends and the frequency of illnesses and injuries for the kennel as a 
whole.
    This rule will also amend the AWA standard for dogs with respect to 
access to clean, drinkable water. The current regulations state that if 
potable water is not continuously available to a facility's dogs, it 
must be offered as often as necessary to ensure the animals' health and 
well-being, and not less than twice daily for at least 1 hour each 
time, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian. The standard 
will require that facilities make potable water continuously available.
    All businesses covered under the AWA will be affected by the 
licensing requirements, including animal dealers, exhibitors, retail 
pet stores, brokers, and breeders. The number of these entities varies 
from year to year, but has tended to be around 6,000 in recent years. 
Based on reported revenue data and Small Business Administration (SBA) 
small-entity standards, the majority of the entities affected by this 
rule can be considered small. About one-half of these businesses are 
licensees and registrants with dogs, including about 2,240 dog breeder 
facilities.
    The licensing requirements will result in annual cost savings 
expected to range from about $627,000 to $2,106,300. The veterinary 
care requirements for facilities having dogs will result in annual 
costs ranging from about $726,200 to about $1,390,200, and the water 
access requirement for these facilities will result in annual costs 
ranging from about $1,020,800 to $2,460,000. Net costs, as shown in 
table A, are therefore expected to range from annual cost savings of 
$359,300 (the higher licensing cost savings estimate plus the lower 
veterinary care and water access cost estimates) to annual costs of 
$3,223,200 (the lower licensing cost savings estimate plus the higher 
veterinary care and water access cost estimates).

         Table A--Estimated Net Costs of the Rule, 2016 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Low estimate    High estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensing cost savings..................    ($2,106,300)      ($627,000)
Veterinary care costs...................         726,200       1,390,200
Water access costs......................       1,020,800       2,460,000
Net costs...............................       (359,300)       3,223,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the costs in the table and in accordance with guidance on 
complying with Executive Order 13771, the single primary estimate of 
the costs of this rule is $1,432,000, the mid-point estimate of net 
costs annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount rate.

Executive Order 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. 
The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be 
exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Executive Order 13175

    This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments. Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult 
and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on 
policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, 
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy 
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or 
mare Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
    The USDA's Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has assessed the impact 
of this rule on Indian Tribes and concluded that this rule does not 
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes.
    OTR has determined that Tribal consultation under Executive Order 
13175 is not required at this time. If consultation is requested, OTR 
will work with the APHIS to ensure quality consultation is provided.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule 
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), some of the information collection 
requirements included in this final rule have been approved under 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 0579-0036 and some 
of the information collection requirements were filed under OMB 
comment-filed number 0579-0470, which has been submitted to OMB for 
approval. When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, 
we will publish a document in

[[Page 28795]]

the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the internet 
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities 
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for 
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act 
compliance related to this rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, 
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Parts 1 and 2

    Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Research.

9 CFR Part 3

    Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research, Transportation.

    Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITION OF TERMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.


0
2. Section 1.1 is amended by removing the definition for AC Regional 
Director and revising the definition for Business hours to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.1   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Business hours means a reasonable number of hours between 7 a.m. 
and 7 p.m. each week of the year, during which inspections by APHIS may 
be made.
* * * * *

PART 2--REGULATIONS

0
3. 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.


0
4. Section 2.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (b), and (c);
0
b. By removing paragraph (d) and redesignating paragraph (e) as 
paragraph (d); and
0
c. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (d) and the OMB citation at 
the end of the section.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  2.1   Requirements and application.

    (a)(1) No person shall operate as a dealer, exhibitor, or operator 
of an auction sale, without a valid license, except persons who are 
exempt from the licensing requirements under paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section. A person must be 18 years of age or older to obtain a license. 
A person seeking a license shall apply on a form which will be 
furnished by the Deputy Administrator. The applicant shall provide the 
information requested on the application form, including, but not 
limited to:
    (i) The name of the person applying for the license;
    (ii) A valid mailing address through which the applicant can be 
reached at all times;
    (iii) Valid addresses for all locations, facilities, premises, or 
sites where animals, animal facilities, equipment, and records are 
held, kept, or maintained;
    (iv) The anticipated maximum number of animals on hand at any one 
time during the period of licensure;
    (v) The anticipated type of animals described in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section to be owned, held, maintained, sold, or 
exhibited, including those animals leased, during the period of 
licensure;
    (vi) If the person is seeking a license as an exhibitor, whether 
the person intends to exhibit any animal at any location other than the 
person's location(s) listed pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this 
section; and
    (vii) Disclosure of any plea of nolo contendere (no contest) or 
finding of violation of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations 
pertaining to animal cruelty or the transportation, ownership, neglect, 
or welfare of animals.
    (2) The completed application form, along with a $120 license fee, 
shall be submitted to the appropriate Animal Care office.
* * * * *
    (b)(1) No person shall have more than one license. Licenses are 
issued to specific persons, and are issued for specific activities, 
types and numbers of animals, and approved sites. A new license must be 
obtained upon change of ownership, location, activities, or animals. A 
licensee shall notify Animal Care no fewer than 90 days and obtain a 
new license before any change in the name, address, substantial control 
or ownership of his business or operation, locations, activities, and 
number or type of animals described in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section. Any person who is subject to the regulations in this 
subchapter and who intends to exhibit any animal at any location other 
than the person's approved site must provide that information on their 
application form in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and 
submit written itineraries in accordance with Sec.  2.126.
    (2) Licenses authorize a specific number and specific type(s) of 
animals, as follows:
    (i) Licenses authorize increments of 50 animals on hand at any 
single point in time during the period of licensure. A licensee must 
obtain a new license before any change resulting in more than the 
authorized number of animals on hand at any single point in time during 
the period of licensure.
    (ii) Licenses authorize the use of animals subject to subparts A 
through F in part 3 of this subchapter, except that, for animals 
subject to subparts D and F, licenses must specifically authorize the 
use of each of the following groups of animals: Group 5 (baboons and 
nonbrachiating species larger than 33 pounds) and Group 6 (great apes 
over 55 pounds and brachiating species) nonhuman primates; exotic and 
wild felids (including but not limited to lions, tigers, leopards, 
cheetahs, jaguars, cougars, lynx, servals, bobcats, and caracals, and 
any hybrid cross thereof); hyenas and/or exotic and wild canids 
(including but not limited to wolves, coyotes, foxes, and jackals); 
bears; and mega-herbivores (including but not limited to elephants, 
rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, and giraffes). A licensee must obtain a 
new license before using any animal beyond those types or numbers of 
animals authorized under the existing license.
    (c) A license will be issued to any applicant, except as provided 
in Sec. Sec.  2.9 through 2.11, when:
    (1) The applicant has met the requirements of this section and 
Sec. Sec.  2.2 and 2.3; and
    (2) The applicant has paid a $120 license fee to the appropriate 
Animal Care office. The applicant may pay the fee by certified check, 
cashier's check, personal check, money order, or credit card. An 
applicant whose check is returned by a bank will be charged a fee of 
$20 for each returned check. If an applicant's check is returned, 
subsequent fees must be paid by certified check, cashier's check, money 
order, or credit card.
    (d) The failure of any person to comply with any provision of the 
Act, or any of the provisions of the regulations or standards in this 
subchapter, shall constitute grounds for denial of a license or for its 
suspension or revocation by the Secretary, as provided in the Act.

[[Page 28796]]


(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
numbers 0579-0036 and 0579-0470)


0
5. Section 2.2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.2   Acknowledgement of regulations and standards.

    Animal Care will supply a copy of the Act and the regulations and 
standards in this subchapter to an applicant upon request. Signing the 
application form is an acknowledgement that the applicant has reviewed 
the Act and the regulations and standards and agrees to comply with 
them.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
numbers 0579-0036 and 0579-0470)


0
6. Section 2.3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.3   Demonstration of compliance with standards and regulations.

    (a) Each applicant for a license must demonstrate that his or her 
location(s) and any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other 
locations used or intended for use in the business comply with the Act 
and the regulations and standards set forth in parts 2 and 3 of this 
subchapter. Each applicant must make his or her animals, locations, 
facilities, vehicles, equipment, and records available for inspection 
during business hours and at other times mutually agreeable to the 
applicant and APHIS, to ascertain the applicant's compliance with the 
Act and the regulations and standards.
    (b) Each applicant for a license must be inspected by APHIS and 
demonstrate compliance with the Act and the regulations and standards, 
as required in paragraph (a) of this section, before APHIS will issue a 
license. If the first inspection reveals that the applicant's animals, 
premises, facilities, vehicles, equipment, locations, or records do not 
meet the applicable requirements of this subchapter, APHIS will advise 
the applicant of existing deficiencies and the corrective measures that 
must be completed to come into compliance with the regulations and 
standards. An applicant who fails the first inspection may request up 
to two more inspections by APHIS to demonstrate his or her compliance 
with the Act and the regulations and standards. The applicant must 
request the second inspection, and if applicable, the third inspection, 
within 60 days following the first inspection.
    (c) Any applicant who fails the third and final prelicense 
inspection may appeal all or part of the inspection findings to the 
Deputy Administrator. To appeal, the applicant must send a written 
statement contesting the inspection finding(s) and include any 
documentation or other information in support of the appeal. To receive 
consideration, the appeal must be received by the Deputy Administrator 
within 7 days of the date the applicant received the third prelicense 
inspection report. Within 7 days of receiving a timely appeal, the 
Deputy Administrator will issue a written response to notify the 
applicant whether APHIS will issue a license or deny the application.
    (d) If an applicant fails inspection or fails to request 
reinspections within the 60-day period, or fails to submit a timely 
appeal of the third prelicense inspection report as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section, the applicant cannot reapply for a 
license for a period of 6 months from the date of the failed third 
inspection or the expiration of the time to request a third inspection. 
No license will be issued until the applicant pays the license fee and 
demonstrates upon inspection that the animals, premises, facilities, 
vehicles, equipment, locations, and records are in compliance with all 
applicable requirements in the Act and the regulations and standards in 
this subchapter.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0036)


0
7. Section 2.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.5   Duration of license and termination of license.

    (a) A license issued under this part shall be valid and effective 
for 3 years unless:
    (1) The license has been revoked or suspended pursuant to section 
19 of the Act or terminated pursuant to Sec.  2.12.
    (2) The license is voluntarily terminated upon request of the 
licensee, in writing, to the Deputy Administrator.
    (3) The license has expired, except that:
    (i) The Deputy Administrator may issue a temporary license, which 
automatically expires after 120 days, to an applicant whose immediately 
preceding 3-year license has expired, if:
    (A) The applicant submits the appropriate application form before 
the expiration date of a preceding license; and
    (B) The applicant had no noncompliances with the Act and the 
regulations and standards in parts 2 and 3 of this subchapter 
documented in any inspection report during the preceding period of 
licensure.
    (ii) For expedited hearings occurring under Sec.  2.11(b)(2), a 
license will remain valid and effective until the administrative law 
judge issues his or her initial decision. Should the administrative law 
judge's initial decision affirm the denial of the license application, 
the applicant's license shall terminate immediately.
    (4) There will not be a refund of the license fee if a license is 
denied, or terminated, suspended, or revoked prior to its expiration 
date.
    (b) Any person who seeks the reinstatement of a license that has 
expired or been terminated must follow the procedure applicable to new 
applicants for a license set forth in Sec.  2.1.
    (c) A license which is invalid under this part shall be surrendered 
to the Deputy Administrator. If the license cannot be found, the 
licensee shall provide a written statement so stating to the Deputy 
Administrator.


Sec. Sec.  2.6 through 2.8   [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Sections 2.6 through 2.8 are removed and reserved.

0
9. Section 2.9 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.9   Officers, agents, and employees of licensees whose licenses 
have been suspended or revoked.

    Any person who has been or is an officer, agent, or employee of a 
licensee whose license has been suspended or revoked and who was 
responsible for or participated in the activity upon which the order of 
suspension or revocation was based will not be licensed, or registered 
as a carrier, intermediate handler, dealer, exhibitor, or research 
facility, within the period during which the order of suspension or 
revocation is in effect.

0
10. Section 2.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.10   Licensees whose licenses have been suspended or revoked.

    (a) Any person whose license or registration has been suspended for 
any reason shall not be licensed, or registered, in his or her own name 
or in any other manner, within the period during which the order of 
suspension is in effect. No partnership, firm, corporation, or other 
legal entity in which any such person has a substantial interest, 
financial or otherwise, will be licensed or registered during that 
period. Any person whose license has been suspended for any reason may 
apply to the Deputy Administrator, in writing, for reinstatement of his 
or her license or registration.
    (b) Any person whose license has been revoked shall not be licensed 
or registered, in his or her own name or in any other manner, and no 
partnership, firm, corporation, or other legal entity in

[[Page 28797]]

which any such person has a substantial interest, financial or 
otherwise, will be licensed or registered.
    (c) Any person whose license has been suspended or revoked shall 
not buy, sell, transport, exhibit, or deliver for transportation, any 
animal during the period of suspension or revocation, under any 
circumstances, whether on his or her behalf or on the behalf of another 
licensee or registrant.

0
11. Section 2.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.11   Denial of license application.

    (a) A license will not be issued to any applicant who:
    (1) Has not complied with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  2.1 
through 2.4 and has not paid the fees indicated in Sec.  2.1;
    (2) Is not in compliance with the Act or any of the regulations or 
standards in this subchapter;
    (3) Has had a license revoked or whose license is suspended, as set 
forth in Sec.  2.1(d);
    (4) Was an officer, agent, or employee of a licensee whose license 
has been suspended or revoked and who was responsible for or 
participated in the activity upon which the order of suspension or 
revocation was based, as set forth in Sec.  2.9;
    (5) Has pled nolo contendere (no contest) or has been found to have 
violated any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to 
animal cruelty within 3 years of application, or after 3 years if the 
Administrator determines that the circumstances render the applicant 
unfit to be licensed;
    (6) Is or would be operating in violation or circumvention of any 
Federal, State, or local laws; or
    (7) Has made any false or fraudulent statements or provided any 
false or fraudulent records to the Department or other government 
agencies, or has pled nolo contendere (no contest) or has been found to 
have violated any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations 
pertaining to the transportation, ownership, neglect, or welfare of 
animals, or is otherwise unfit to be licensed and the Administrator 
determines that the issuance of a license would be contrary to the 
purposes of the Act.
    (b)(1) An applicant whose initial license application has been 
denied may request a hearing in accordance with the applicable rules of 
practice in 7 CFR part 1 for the purpose of showing why the application 
for license should not be denied. The denial of an initial license 
application shall remain in effect until the final decision has been 
rendered. Should the license denial be upheld, the applicant may again 
apply for a license 1 year from the date of the final order denying the 
application, unless the order provides otherwise.
    (2) An applicant who submitted a timely appeal of a third 
prelicense inspection as described in Sec.  2.3(c), and whose appeal 
results in the denial of the license application, may request an 
expedited hearing if the applicant held a valid license when he or she 
submitted the license application that has been denied and the Deputy 
Administrator received such license application no fewer than 90 days 
prior to the expiration of the valid license. If the applicant meets 
the criteria in this paragraph (b)(2), and notwithstanding the 
timeframes of the proceedings set forth in the applicable rules of 
practice (7 CFR 1.130 through 1.151):
    (i) The applicant must submit the request for an expedited hearing 
within 30 days of receiving notice from the Deputy Administrator that 
the license application has been denied;
    (ii) The administrative law judge shall set the expedited hearing 
so that it occurs within 30 days of receiving a timely request for 
expedited hearing as described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; 
and
    (iii) The administrative law judge must issue an initial decision 
no later than 30 days after the expedited hearing.
    (iv) The applicant's license will remain valid until the 
administrative law judge issues his or her initial decision. Should the 
administrative law judge's initial decision affirm the denial of the 
license application, the applicant's license shall terminate 
immediately.
    (c) No partnership, firm, corporation, or other legal entity in 
which a person whose license application has been denied has a 
substantial interest, financial or otherwise, will be licensed within 1 
year of the license denial.
    (d) No license will be issued under circumstances that the 
Administrator determines would circumvent any order, stipulation, or 
settlement agreement suspending, revoking, terminating, or denying a 
license or disqualifying a person from engaging in activities under the 
Act.

0
12. Section 2.12 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.12   Termination of a license.

    A license may be terminated at any time for any reason that a 
license application may be denied pursuant to Sec.  2.11 after a 
hearing in accordance with the applicable rules of practice in 7 CFR 
part 1.

0
13. Section 2.13 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  2.13   Appeal of inspection report.

    Except as otherwise provided in Sec.  2.3(c), any licensee or 
registrant may appeal all or part of the inspection findings in an 
inspection report to the Deputy Administrator. To appeal, the licensee 
or registrant must send a written statement contesting the inspection 
finding(s) and include any documentation or other information in 
support of the appeal. To receive consideration, the appeal must be 
received by the Deputy Administrator within 21 days of the date the 
licensee or registrant received the inspection report that is the 
subject of the appeal.


Sec.  2.25   [Amended]

0
14. In Sec.  2.25, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words ``AC 
Regional Director'' each time they appear and adding the words ``Deputy 
Administrator'' in their place.


Sec.  2.26   [Amended]

0
15. Section 2.26 is amended by removing the words ``AC Regional 
Director'' and adding the words ``Deputy Administrator'' in their 
place.


Sec.  2.27  [Amended]

0
16. Section 2.27 is amended by removing the words ``AC Regional 
Director'' each time they appear and adding the words ``Deputy 
Administrator'' in their place.


Sec.  2.30   [Amended]

0
17. Section 2.30 is amended by removing the words ``AC Regional 
Director'' each time they appear and adding the words ``Deputy 
Administrator'' in their place.


Sec.  2.35   [Amended]

0
18. In Sec.  2.35, the OMB citation at the end of the section is 
amended by removing the number ``0579-0254'' and adding the number 
``0579-0036'' in its place.


Sec.  2.36   [Amended]

0
19. In Sec.  2.36, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words ``AC 
Regional Director'' and adding the words ``Deputy Administrator'' in 
their place.

0
20. Section 2.38 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (c);
0
b. In paragraph (g)(1) introductory text, by removing the period 
between the words ``acquired'' and ``sold'' and adding a comma in its 
place;
0
c. In paragraph (g)(7), footnote 1, by removing the words ``AC Regional 
Director'' and adding the words

[[Page 28798]]

``Deputy Administrator'' in their place; and
0
d. In paragraph (i) introductory text, by removing the words ``AC 
Regional Director'' and adding the words ``Deputy Administrator'' in 
their place.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  2.38  Miscellaneous.

* * * * *
    (c) Publication of lists of research facilities subject to the 
provisions of this part. APHIS will publish on its website lists of 
research facilities registered in accordance with the provisions of 
this subpart. The lists may also be obtained upon request from the 
Deputy Administrator.
* * * * *


Sec.  2.52   [Amended]

0
21. In Sec.  2.52, footnote 4 is amended by removing the words ``AC 
Regional Director'' and adding the words ``Deputy Administrator'' in 
their place.


Sec.  2.75   [Amended]

0
22. In Sec.  2.75, paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) are amended by removing 
the citation ``Sec.  2.79'' and adding the citation ``Sec.  2.78'' in 
its place.


Sec.  2.77   [Amended]

0
23. In Sec.  2.77, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the citation 
``Sec.  2.79'' and adding the citation ``Sec.  2.78'' in its place.


Sec.  2.102   [Amended]

0
24. In Sec.  2.102, paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text are 
amended by removing the words ``AC Regional Director'' and adding the 
words ``Deputy Administrator'' in their place.


Sec.  2.126   [Amended]

0
25. In Sec.  2.126, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words ``AC 
Regional Director'' each time they appear and adding the words ``Deputy 
Administrator'' in their place.

0
26. Section 2.127 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  2.127  Publication of lists of persons subject to the provisions 
of this part.

    APHIS will publish on its website lists of persons licensed or 
registered in accordance with the provisions of this part. The lists 
may also be obtained upon request from the Deputy Administrator.


Sec.  2.132   [Amended]

0
27. In Sec.  2.132, the OMB citation at the end of the section is 
amended by removing the number ``0579-0254'' and adding the number 
``0579-0036'' in its place.


Sec.  2.150   [Amended]

0
28. Section 2.150 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the words ``continental United States or Hawaii'' each 
time they appear and adding the word ``States'' in their place;
0
b. In paragraph (a), by removing the words ``, research, or veterinary 
treatment''; and
0
c. In paragraph (c)(8), by adding the words ``resale for'' immediately 
before the words ``research purposes''.


Sec.  2.151   [Amended]

0
29. Section 2.151 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the words ``continental United States or Hawaii'' each 
time they appear and adding the word ``States'' in their place;
0
b. In paragraph (a) introductory text, by removing the words ``, 
research, or veterinary treatment'';
0
c. In paragraph (b)(1), by adding the words ``resale for'' immediately 
before the words ``use in research, tests, or experiments at a research 
facility''; and
0
d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, by adding the words ``and 
subsequent resale'' immediately after the words ``for veterinary 
treatment by a licensed veterinarian''.


Sec.  2.152   [Amended]

0
30. Section 2.152 is amended by removing the words ``continental United 
States or Hawaii'' and adding the word ``States'' in their place.


Sec.  2.153   [Amended]

0
31. Section 2.153 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the words ``continental United States or Hawaii'' both 
times they appear and adding the word ``States'' in their place; and
0
b. By adding the words ``or the Act'' immediately after the words 
``this subpart''.

PART 3--STANDARDS

0
32. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.


Sec.  3.6   [Amended]

0
33. In Sec.  3.6, paragraphs (b)(5) and (c)(3) are amended by removing 
the citations ``Sec.  3.14 of this subpart'' and ``Sec.  3.14(a)(6) of 
this subpart'' and adding the citations ``Sec.  3.15'' and ``Sec.  
3.15(a)(6)'' in their places, respectively.

0
34. Section 3.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  3.10  Watering.

    (a) Potable water must be continuously available to the dogs, 
unless restricted by the attending veterinarian or except as provided 
in Sec.  3.17(a).
    (b) If potable water is not continuously available to the cats, it 
must be offered to the cats as often as necessary to ensure their 
health and well-being, but not less than twice daily for at least 1 
hour each time, unless restricted by the attending veterinarian.
    (c) Water receptacles must be kept clean and sanitized in 
accordance with Sec.  3.11(b) and before being used to water a 
different dog or cat or a different social grouping of dogs or cats.


Sec. Sec.  3.13 through 3.19   [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  3.14 through 
3.20]

0
35. Sections 3.13 through 3.19 are redesignated as Sec. Sec.  3.14 
through 3.20, respectively.

0
36. New Sec.  3.13 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  3.13  Veterinary care for dogs.

    (a) Each dealer, exhibitor, and research facility must follow an 
appropriate program of veterinary care for dogs that is developed, 
documented in writing, and signed by the attending veterinarian. 
Dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities must keep and maintain the 
written program and make it available for APHIS inspection. The written 
program of veterinary care must address the requirements for adequate 
veterinary care for every dealer and exhibitor in Sec.  2.40 of this 
subchapter and every research facility in Sec.  2.33 of this 
subchapter, and must also include:
    (1) Regularly scheduled visits, not less than once every 12 months, 
by the attending veterinarian to all premises where animals are kept, 
to assess and ensure the adequacy of veterinary care and other aspects 
of animal care and use;
    (2) A complete physical examination from head to tail of each dog 
by the attending veterinarian not less than once every 12 months;
    (3) Vaccinations for contagious and/or deadly diseases of dogs 
(including rabies, parvovirus and distemper) and sampling and treatment 
of parasites and other pests (including fleas, worms, coccidia, 
giardia, and heartworm) in accordance with a schedule approved by the 
attending veterinarian, unless otherwise required by a research 
protocol approved by the Committee at research facilities; and
    (4) Preventative care and treatment to ensure healthy and unmatted 
hair coats, properly trimmed nails, and clean and healthy eyes, ears, 
skin, and teeth,

[[Page 28799]]

unless otherwise required by a research protocol approved by the 
Committee at research facilities.
    (b) Dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities must keep copies 
of medical records for dogs and make the records available for APHIS 
inspection. These records must include:
    (1) The identity of the animal, including identifying marks, 
tattoos, or tags on the animal and the animal's breed, sex, and age; 
Provided, however, that routine husbandry, such as vaccinations, 
preventive medical procedures, or treatments, performed on all animals 
in a group (or herd), may be kept on a single record;
    (2) If a problem is identified (such as a disease, injury, or 
illness), the date and a description of the problem, examination 
findings, test results, plan for treatment and care, and treatment 
procedures performed, when appropriate;
    (3) The names of all vaccines and treatments administered and the 
dates of administration; and
    (4) The dates and findings/results of all screening, routine, or 
other required or recommended test or examination.
    (c) Medical records for dogs shall be kept for the following 
periods:
    (1) The medical records for dogs shall be kept and maintained by 
the research facility for the duration of the research activity and for 
an additional 3 years after the dog is euthanized or disposed of, and 
for any period in excess of 3 years as necessary to comply with any 
applicable Federal, State, or local law.
    (2) The medical records for dogs shall be kept and maintained by 
the dealer or exhibitor for at least 1 year after the dog is euthanized 
or disposed of and for any period in excess of 1 year as necessary to 
comply with any applicable Federal, State, or local law.
    (3) Whenever the Administrator notifies a research facility, 
dealer, or exhibitor in writing that specified records shall be 
retained pending completion of an investigation or proceeding under the 
Act, the research facility, dealer, or exhibitor shall hold those 
records until their disposition is authorized by the Administrator.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0470)

Sec.  3.14   [Amended]

0
37. Newly redesignated Sec.  3.14 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c) introductory text, by removing the citation ``Sec.  
3.16 of this subpart'' and adding the citation ``Sec.  3.17'' in its 
place;
0
b. In paragraph (d), by removing the citation ``Sec.  3.14 of this 
subpart'' and adding the citation ``Sec.  3.15'' in its place; and
0
c. In paragraph (e) introductory text:
0
i. In the first sentence, by removing the citation ``Sec. Sec.  3.18 
and 3.19 of this subpart'' both times it appears and adding the 
citation ``Sec. Sec.  3.19 and 3.20'' in its place; and
0
ii. In the second sentence, by removing the citations ``Sec.  3.18'' 
and ``Sec.  3.19'' and adding the citations ``Sec.  3.19'' and ``Sec.  
3.20'' in their place, respectively.


Sec.  3.15   [Amended]

0
38. In newly redesignated Sec.  3.15, paragraph (h) is amended by 
removing the citation ``Sec.  3.13(c)'' and adding the citation ``Sec.  
3.14(c)'' in its place.


Sec.  3.17   [Amended]

0
39. In newly redesignated Sec.  3.17, paragraph (a) is amended by 
removing the citation
    ``Sec.  3.13(c) of this subpart'' both times it appears and adding 
the citation ``Sec.  3.14(c)'' in its place.

0
40. Newly redesignated Sec.  3.18 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), by removing the citation ``Sec.  3.15(e)'' and 
adding the citation ``Sec.  3.16(e)'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (b), by removing the citation ``Sec.  3.15(d)'' and 
adding the citation ``Sec.  3.16(d)'' in its place; and
0
c. In paragraph (d), by adding a paragraph heading and removing the 
citations ``Sec.  3.14(b) of this subpart'' and ``Sec.  3.6 or Sec.  
3.14 of this subpart'' and adding the citations ``Sec.  3.15(b)'' and 
``Sec.  3.6 or Sec.  3.15'' in their places, respectively.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  3.18   Care in transit.

* * * * *
    (d) Removal during transportation in commerce prohibited. * * *
* * * * *


Sec.  3.19   [Amended]

0
41. In newly redesignated Sec.  3.19, paragraph (f) is amended by 
removing the citation ``Sec.  3.13(f) of this subpart'' and adding the 
citation ``Sec.  3.14(f)'' in its place.


Sec.  3.20   [Amended]

0
42. Newly redesignated Sec.  3.20 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the citation ``Sec.  3.18(d) of 
this subpart'' and adding the citation ``Sec.  3.19(d)'' in its place; 
and
0
b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the citations ``Sec.  3.13(e)'' and 
``Sec.  3.18(d) of this subpart'' and adding the citations ``Sec.  
3.14(e)'' and ``Sec.  3.19(d)'' in their places, respectively.


Sec.  3.61   [Amended]

0
43. Section 3.61 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``specie'' and adding the 
word ``species'' in its place; and
0
b. In paragraph (f), by removing the word ``works'' and adding the word 
``words'' in its place.

0
44. Section 3.78 is amended by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  3.78  Outdoor housing facilities.

* * * * *


Sec.  3.110   [Amended]

0
45. In Sec.  3.110, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words ``it 
is determined that''.


Sec.  3.111   [Amended]

0
46. Section 3.111 is amended by removing the word ``regional'' in 
footnote 14.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2020.
Lorren Walker,
Acting Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-07837 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P