Handling of Animals; Contingency Plans, 68533-68538 [2021-26174]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 230 (Friday, December 3, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68533-68538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26174]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. APHIS-2020-0101]
RIN 0579-AC69


Handling of Animals; Contingency Plans

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued a final 
rule on December 31, 2012, to establish regulations under which 
research facilities and dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and 
carriers must meet certain requirements for contingency planning and 
training of personnel. Implementation of the final rule was stayed on 
July 31, 2013, so that the agency could conduct additional review to 
further consider the impact of contingency plan requirements on 
regulated entities. Since that time, we have conducted such a review, 
and the 2021 Congressional Appropriations Act has required us to 
propose to lift the stay. We are therefore lifting the stay and making 
minor revisions to the requirements in order to update compliance dates 
and clarify intent. The lifting of the stay and proposed revisions will 
better ensure that entities responsible for animals regulated under the 
Animal Welfare Act are prepared to safeguard the health and welfare of 
such animals in the event of possible emergencies or disasters.

DATES: Effective January 3, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Elizabeth Theodorson, DVM, MPH, 
Assistant Deputy Administrator, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road, 
Unit 86, Riverdale, MD 20737; (970) 494-7473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 68534]]

Background

    Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and 
other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and 
transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, 
exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers. The Secretary has 
delegated authority 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 APHIS' Animal Care program (AC). Regulations and standards 
established under the AWA are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 
(referred to below as the regulations).
    Following the events experienced during the 2005 hurricane season, 
AC concluded that entities responsible for animals covered by the AWA 
could better safeguard the health and welfare of their animals by 
developing contingency plans for possible emergencies or disasters. 
Consequently, on December 31, 2012, APHIS published in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 76815-76824, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0159) a final rule 
\1\ establishing regulations under which research facilities and 
dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers of animals 
regulated under the AWA must meet certain requirements for developing 
contingency plans and training personnel in their role and 
responsibilities related to the contingency plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the final rule, go to https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2006-0159-0209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After learning that a number of small entities considered the 
requirements of these regulations excessive for their specific cases, 
and determining there to be validity to such a claim, on July 31, 2013, 
we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 46255, Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0159) a stay \2\ of the regulations to reexamine any unique 
circumstances and costs that may vary by the type and size of 
businesses affected by the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To view the stay of the regulations, go to https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2006-0159-0214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since that time, APHIS has issued de minimis exemptions to animal 
licensure that we believe address the concerns that led to the stay. 
Additionally, on December 27, 2020, the 2021 Congressional 
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 116-260) required APHIS to propose to lift 
the stay on the final rule establishing contingency plan requirements 
within 180 days of issuance of that Act.
    On June 25, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR 
33567-33570, Docket No. APHIS-2020-0101) a proposal \3\ to lift the 
stay and make minor changes to the contingency plan regulations. These 
changes included updating the compliance dates by which regulated 
entities must create their contingency plans to 180 days after the 
effective date of this final rule; modifying the dates regarding when 
regulated entities must provide training to personnel to 60 days after 
the contingency plan being put in place; removing an extraneous 
reference to additional requirements for marine mammals to minimize 
confusion; removing the requirement that facilities as well as dealers, 
exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers document their 
personnel's participation in requisite trainings; and adding a 
reference to a new optional form that entities may use to develop and 
document a contingency plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To view the proposed rule, the comments we received, and 
supporting documents go to www.regulations.gov and type APHIS-2020-
0101 into the Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
August 24, 2021. We received 140 submissions representing 35,654 
comments by that date (one of the submissions had 35,000-plus form 
comments in support of the rule attached). They were from non-profit 
organizations; businesses; an association of research centers; national 
and state associations for biomedical research; associations of zoos, 
aquariums, and marine parks; veterinary associations; animal welfare 
organizations; and members of the public.
    Of the 140 submissions, 138 supported the rule, and most exhorted 
us to finalize it without change to the rule or supporting documents. 
The comments that we received are discussed below by topic.

Contingency Plans

    One commenter claimed that creating a contingency plan would be 
impossible for them because they had too many animals spread over too 
much acreage to shelter them in one location in the event of an 
emergency. The commenter noted that their animals used scattered 
shelters in extreme weather and that their geographical location was 
not at risk of flooding.
    The regulations require entities to identify potential emergencies 
or disasters they are likely to experience and outline specific tasks 
to take (such as evacuation or shelter-in-place instructions) in the 
event that these situations occur.
    The use of scattered shelters in extreme weather is an example of 
what could be an appropriate response to a potential emergency or 
disaster depending on an entity's circumstances. As such, the 
regulations authorize their use, if a regulated entity considers them 
appropriate based on the entity's unique circumstances. The regulations 
also do not require an entity to plan a response to flooding if 
flooding could not reasonably be anticipated.
    Another commenter suggested that, instead of requiring entities to 
create contingency plans, USDA should provide yearly educational 
coaching on best practices for facility management and animal care.
    While USDA inspectors will provide advice on facility management 
and animal care during inspections, such advice is not a sufficient 
replacement for this rule. The adverse events due to lack of planning 
detailed in the proposed rule and its supporting economic analysis 
outline the need for regulatory action. Accordingly, APHIS maintains 
that regulations are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of 
animals under the care of regulated entities in compliance with the 
AWA.
    Four commenters suggested APHIS provide additional resources for 
entities creating contingency plans, such as training materials, 
webinars, or links for further reading.
    APHIS AC will conduct internal and external webinars regarding 
contingency planning and provide outreach materials on the APHIS 
website such as Frequently Asked Questions, aids, resources for further 
reading, and contact information in case entities have further 
questions.
    Another commenter suggested that USDA develop sample templates, 
provide training for USDA inspectors who will help entities develop 
contingency plans, and obtain funding for this training.
    As stated in the proposed rule, APHIS has provided an optional form 
that regulated entities may use as a template. This template was 
published alongside the proposed rule and will be available on the 
APHIS website. The APHIS website will also include various outreach 
materials to assist with contingency planning. AC's Center for Animal 
Welfare has developed a plan to implement the contingency planning 
regulations and has trained its personnel accordingly. This training is 
possible without additional funding

[[Page 68535]]

apart from that appropriated by Congress for AC's ongoing operations.
    Another commenter asked for the contingency requirements to be more 
prescriptive. Specifically, the commenter wanted APHIS to require 
entities to create contingency plans for the potential death of an 
owner and heat waves.
    The regulations require a regulated entity to identify emergencies 
or disasters that could reasonably be anticipated and that would be 
detrimental to the well-being of their animals. We expect that, for 
most entities, it would be difficult to reasonably anticipate death.
    If an entity determines that they are located in an area prone to 
heat waves that could be reasonably anticipated to be harmful to their 
animals, they would need to address heat waves in their contingency 
plans. However, an entity located in an extremely temperate climate may 
assess climatic conditions and determine a heat wave to be unlikely. 
APHIS believes that regulated entities themselves are best suited to 
make such determinations, and therefore will not provide a one-size-
fits-all list of emergencies or disasters that all entities must plan 
for.
    Another commenter requested explicit acknowledgement that plans 
developed for compliance with The Guide for the Care and Use of 
Laboratory Animals (The Guide) comply with this rule's contingency plan 
regulations.
    Contingency plans developed using The Guide are acceptable so long 
as they fulfill the requirements laid out in the regulations.
    The commenter also requested assurance that APHIS will not view 
deviations from contingency plans in emergency situations as 
violations, but as on-the-ground efforts to tailor the plan to specific 
events and opportunities to improve the contingency plan.
    APHIS agrees with the commenter that the actual response may vary 
from the written contingency plan in an emergency situation, and that 
these variations can serve as a basis for updating and improving a 
contingency plan. If an entity varies its response from its written 
contingency plan in order to better meet the needs of an unfolding 
emergency situation, this would not necessarily be viewed as a 
violation. In such situations, APHIS would determine whether or not a 
violation has occurred on a case-by-case basis, based on whether the 
deviation furthers the purpose of the regulation, which is to safeguard 
the health and welfare of animals in the event of possible emergencies 
or disasters.
    One commenter suggested requiring regulated entities to submit 
their contingency plans to USDA for review.
    We are making no changes in response to the commenter. Submitting a 
plan to APHIS is not the sole means to demonstrate that a plan has been 
developed and satisfies the requirements of the regulations, and would 
impose a significant resource constraint on AC to receive and compile 
the plans and ensure their confidentiality. Rather, AC will ensure 
compliance with this rule through reviewing the entity's plan during 
announced and unannounced inspections. We believe that this method of 
enforcing the requirements provides sufficient assurance that the 
contingency planning requirements are being met while minimizing 
regulatory burden on entities and more efficiently allocating agency 
resources.
    One commenter urged APHIS to take further action to ensure that an 
entity's contingency plans are kept confidential.
    APHIS will not maintain the plans. Therefore, this rule does not 
raise confidentiality concerns.

Training

    A commenter wrote that the regulatory text should overtly state 
that it is up to the regulated entity to determine who needs to be 
trained and how.
    The entity is responsible for including all personnel encompassed 
by the plan in the training and is responsible for the content and 
delivery of the training. We do not believe it is necessary to add this 
statement into the regulatory text, as the regulations do not state or 
imply otherwise.
    The commenter also asked that the regulatory text clarify that only 
substantive changes to a contingency plan would necessitate updated 
training.
    We agree with the commenter that non-substantive changes, which 
could include revisions as minor as reordering of instructions or 
grammatical corrections, do not necessitate updated training, and have 
made this change in Sec. Sec.  2.38(l)(3) and 2.134(c). Our intent was 
that only substantive changes, that is, changes that materially alter 
the plan, would require updated training.
    The commenter also asked that the 60- or 30-day training deadlines 
that we proposed be extended to 90 days for both initial and subsequent 
training of personnel.
    We are making no changes in response to this comment. Training 
required by the regulations entails familiarizing personnel with their 
roles and responsibilities as outlined in the contingency plan. APHIS 
believes the deadlines in the proposed rule (60 days for initial 
training and 30 days for new employees and updates to the contingency 
plan) are sufficient time to provide this basic training, and the 
commenter did not provide information suggesting this basic training 
could not be accomplished within that time period.
    As noted above, we proposed to remove a requirement from the stayed 
final rule that facilities as well as dealers, exhibitors, intermediate 
handlers, and carriers document their personnel's participation in 
requisite trainings. Seven commenters disagreed with our proposed 
removal and asked for it to be reinstated.
    APHIS does not believe that requiring entities to keep training 
records would significantly increase compliance with the training 
requirements, but it would increase burden on regulated entities.
    Rather than require documentation, we will evaluate compliance with 
the training requirement through discussions with the licensee or 
registrant during announced and unannounced inspections. APHIS AC 
successfully enforces other training requirements in this manner, and 
is confident that this model will work for the regulations promulgated 
in this rule as well. Therefore, we are making no change in response to 
the commenters.

Economic Analysis

    Two commenters stated that our estimates for the time it will take 
entities to create contingency plans and train personnel are too low.
    Our estimates are averages based on the varying sizes of the 
entities and the optional fillable template the agency is providing. 
Some entities may require less time, and some will require more. 
Additionally, based on the comments received, it appears that most 
entities will not be formulating their plans de novo. Several 
commenters who were regulated entities themselves opined that it would 
be difficult for a regulated entity to remain operational without at 
least some contingency planning, and a few commenters stated that the 
regulated entities they represented already have contingency plans in 
place that meet the requirements of the rule. Indeed, one of the 
commenters who stated that our estimates were too low also stated that 
the entities that it represents already have plans in place and should 
not incur new costs as a result of the rule.
    Based on the comments received, we believe that the 1-to-2-hours 
for plan

[[Page 68536]]

creation and 1 hour for training estimates, relative to the current 
plans maintained and training conducted by the entity, are reasonable.
    One commenter stated that costs are unlikely to drop to zero after 
the first year.
    We are not assuming that there will be no reoccurring annual costs 
after the first year of the implementation of the rule. We believe that 
the costs after the first year of developing and implementing 
contingency plans will decrease for existing entities as they would 
have already incurred the initial development and implementation costs.
    The commenter also stated that, while they agree that capital costs 
will vary between entities, these costs will not be minimal.
    The proposed rule did not prescribe any capital investments that 
entities must make. The entities vary by size and type and will have 
different requirements in terms of equipment. While some entities may 
incur costs to purchase equipment, others may already have equipment as 
a part of their business operations. We also note that the same 
commenter stated that the entities it represents had already assumed 
those costs apart from this rule as a cost of doing business.

Environmental Analysis

    One commenter questioned why an environmental analysis was 
prepared, since they expected contingency plans to have only a positive 
impact on the environment.
    APHIS conducted an environmental assessment based on the Council on 
Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) newly revised implementing procedures. 
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews all potential 
impacts, not just those with negative implications (40 CFR 
1508.1(g)(1)).

Other Comments

    A commenter asked that contingency plan regulations for marine 
mammals in 9 CFR 3.101(b) be eliminated.
    This is outside of this rule's scope.
    A commenter stated that there was a lack of a clear definition for 
the term ``breeding female'' as used in AWA regulations.
    This is also outside of this rule's scope.

Miscellaneous

    Finally, in reviewing the proposed rule with an eye toward 
implementation, we noticed that the explanations of training deadlines 
in Sec. Sec.  2.38(l)(3) and 2.134(c) were ambiguous and did not 
clearly reflect APHIS' intent in drafting the proposed rule. We 
intended to state that if an employee was hired before or up to 30 days 
after a facility has its plan in place, that employee would have to be 
trained within 60 days of the plan being in place, whereas, if an 
employee was hired after that date, the facility would have 30 days to 
train the employee. However, the proposed rule could be read to suggest 
that employees hired at least 30 days before the plan is put in place 
must be trained by the time the plan is put in place, which would 
require training in the provisions of the plan before the plan itself 
was finalized. Requiring training in a plan that is not yet finalized 
and in place could be logistically problematic for regulated entities 
and, again, was not APHIS' intent. We have revised the paragraphs 
accordingly to make our intent clearer.
    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 Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding 
the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full 
analysis are available on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 3 
in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    We are amending the AWA regulations to implement contingency plans 
for the handling of animals during emergencies. In December 2012, the 
USDA's APHIS published a final rule requiring all dealers, exhibitors, 
intermediate handlers, carriers, research facilities, and other 
entities regulated under the AWA to take steps to be better prepared 
for potential emergencies and disasters (situations which could 
reasonably be anticipated and expected to be detrimental to the good 
health and well-being of the animals in the regulated entity's 
possession). In July 2013, USDA issued a stay of the Contingency Plan 
Regulation in order to undertake a review of its requirements. In June 
of 2021, we published a proposed rule to lift the stay on the December 
2012 rulemaking along with other minor administrative changes. This 
final rule will codify the provisions of the proposed rule and lift the 
stay on the 2012 final rule.
    While it is difficult to quantify the benefits of contingency 
planning, they are numerous. First, contingency planning can prevent 
loss of animal life and any resulting undisposed carcasses that pose a 
threat to public health. Second, loss of valuable research resources 
and income can be mitigated with contingency planning. Third, having a 
contingency plan can reduce the time of recovery from disasters and 
thus provide cost savings to the affected businesses and organizations 
and allow for business continuity. Finally, required contingency 
planning will reassure the general public that facilities have measures 
in place to ensure the welfare of the animals in times of catastrophic 
and common emergencies.
    APHIS' AC program will be providing a fillable form that can be 
used to develop and document the contingency plan; however, entities 
that have contingency plans in place may use those. For example, we 
believe that U.S. Public Health Service-funded research facilities and 
AZA zoos and aquariums have already developed contingency plans; they 
will not need to adopt the template. The template is intended to aid 
entities currently without a written contingency plan, and we estimate 
it will take on average 1-2 hours per entity to complete the plan, 
which includes the time to collect and document the required 
information. We anticipate that the use of this form will improve 
compliance and expedite the time for annual review by regulated 
entities of the plan. APHIS also estimates it will take, on average, 1 
hour to train employees on the operations of the plan, which consists 
of familiarizing employees with their roles and responsibilities as 
outlined in the plan.
    We estimated lower and upper range estimates of costs for licensees 
and registrants to develop contingency plans in the first year. As 
noted above, we assume an average of 1 to 2 hours is required to 
prepare and implement a contingency plan using the form and 1 hour for 
employee training in the first year. We multiplied this time by the 
average industry-specific wage rate of the entities. Our estimate of 
the total one-time cost to develop the contingency plans across all 
affected entity categories ranges from about $185,000 to about $370,000 
and $185,000 for employee training, as well as possible capital costs, 
which will differ from entity to entity and which we accordingly are 
not able to estimate in aggregate. These estimates may be high, given 
our inclusion of entities that may currently have comparable

[[Page 68537]]

contingency plans and already provide employee training, but for which 
we lack verifying information.
    The 1 to 2 hours that we assume would be required to develop a 
contingency plan includes the time needed to identify resources for the 
plan's preparation and documentation. The 1-hour training estimate for 
all current and new employees considers the time it would take an 
employee to become familiar with their roles and responsibilities as 
outlined in the plan. The costs included in this analysis reflect 
training for the first year only. Contingency planning also requires 
record keeping, ensuring that the contingency plans are kept current, 
and employee training. The type of training and type of contingency 
plan required may differ depending on the type of organization or 
business, as well as its location and the location's climate history.

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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment 
provides a basis for the conclusion that the creation of contingency 
plans will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the 
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has 
determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
were prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.), (2) regulations of the CEQ for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations 
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
may be viewed on the Regulations.gov website.\4\ Copies of the 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also 
available for public inspection at USDA, Room 1620, South Building, 
14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing 
to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 799-7039 to 
facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be 
obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS-2020-0101 in the 
Search field. The environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact will appear in the list of documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.), the information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule have been 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval 
under control number 0579-0479. When OMB notifies us of its decision, 
if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal 
Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

E-Government Act Compliance

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

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 2

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

    Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 2 as follows:

PART 2--REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  2.38:
0
a. By lifting the stay on paragraph (l) published at July 31, 2013 (78 
FR 46255);
0
b. In paragraph (l)(2):
0
i. In the first sentence by removing the date ``July 29, 2013'' and 
adding ``July 5, 2022'' in its place;
0
ii. In the fifth sentence by removing the words ``and training 
records''; and
0
iii. By revising the last sentence; and
0
c. By revising paragraph (l)(3); and
0
d. By adding an OMB citation at the end of the section.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  2.38  Miscellaneous.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) * * * The APHIS Contingency Plan form may be used to keep and 
maintain the information required by paragraph (l)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (3) The facility must provide training for its personnel regarding 
their roles and responsibilities as outlined in the plan. For current 
registrants, training of facility personnel must be completed within 60 
days of the research facility putting their plan in place; for research 
facilities registered after July 5, 2022, training of facility 
personnel must be completed within 60 days of the facility putting its 
contingency plan in place. This deadline applies to employees hired 
before and up to 30 days after the facility puts its contingency plan 
in place. For employees hired more than 30 days after the facility puts 
its contingency plan in place, training must be conducted within 30 
days of their start date. Any substantive changes to the plan as a 
result of the annual review must be communicated to employees through 
training which must be conducted within 30 days of making the changes.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0479)


0
3. Amend Sec.  2.134:
0
a. By lifting the stay on the section published July 31, 2013 (78 FR 
46255);
0
b. In paragraph (b):
0
i. In the first sentence by removing the date ``July 29, 2013'' and 
adding ``July 5, 2022'' in its place;
0
ii. In the fifth sentence by removing the words ``and training 
records''; and
0
iii. By revising the last sentence; and
0
c. By revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. By adding an OMB citation at the end of the section.
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  2.134  Contingency planning.

* * * * *

[[Page 68538]]

    (b) * * * The APHIS Contingency Plan form may be used to keep and 
maintain the information required by Sec.  2.38(l)(1) and (2).
    (c) Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers must 
provide training for their personnel regarding their roles and 
responsibilities as outlined in the plan. For current licensees and 
registrants, training of dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, and 
carrier personnel must be completed within 60 days of the licensee and 
registrant putting their contingency plan in place; for new dealers, 
exhibitors, intermediate handlers, or carriers licensed or registered 
after July 5, 2022, training of personnel must be completed within 60 
days of the dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, or carrier putting 
their contingency plan in place. This deadline applies to employees 
hired before and up to 30 days after the date the licensee or 
registrant puts its contingency plan in place. For employees hired more 
than 30 days after the date the licensee or registrant puts its 
contingency plan in place, training must be conducted within 30 days of 
their start date. Any substantive changes to the plan as a result of 
the annual review must be communicated to employees through training 
which must be conducted within 30 days of making the changes.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0479)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of November 2021.
Mark Davidson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-26174 Filed 12-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P