Wild and Exotic Animal Handling, Training of Personnel Involved With Public Handling of Wild and Exotic Animals, and Environmental Enrichment for Species, 1151-1154 [2023-00021]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1151-1154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3

[Docket No. APHIS-2022-0022]
RIN 0579-AE69


Wild and Exotic Animal Handling, Training of Personnel Involved 
With Public Handling of Wild and Exotic Animals, and Environmental 
Enrichment for Species

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are soliciting public comment on our plan to strengthen 
regulations regarding the handling of wild and exotic animals for 
exhibition, as well as the training of personnel involved in the 
handling of wild and exotic animals, and to establish standards 
addressing environmental enrichment for all regulated animals. The 
changes we are considering would help ensure the humane handling and 
treatment of exhibited animals, as well as the health and well-being of 
all animals covered under the Animal Welfare Act.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 
10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov. 
Enter APHIS-2022-0022 in the Search field. Select the Documents tab, 
then select the Comment button in the list of documents.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to 
Docket No. APHIS-2022-0022, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, Station 3A-03.10, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1238.
    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may 
be viewed at www.regulations.gov or in our reading room, which is 
located in room 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and 
Independence

[[Page 1152]]

Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is 
there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Lance H. Bassage, VMD, Director, 
National Policy Staff, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 84, 
Riverdale, MD 20737; [email protected]; (970) 494-7478.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and 
other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and 
transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, 
exhibitors, operators of auction sales, 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 
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. 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; and part 2 provides administrative 
requirements and sets forth institutional responsibilities for 
regulated parties. Within part 2, subpart I contains, among other 
things, requirements for the handling of wild or exotic animals. Part 3 
contains specifications for the humane handling, care, treatment, and 
transportation of animals covered by the AWA.
    Currently, there are 1,970 active class C (exhibitor) licenses; 
since 2019, roughly 70 to 145 new licenses have been approved each 
year. Under the current regulations, licensees who maintain wild or 
exotic animals must demonstrate adequate experience and knowledge of 
the species they maintain (9 CFR 2.131(a)). The regulations also 
require that all animals be handled as expeditiously and carefully as 
possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive 
cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort, 
and prohibits physical abuse (9 CFR 2.131(b)), and during public 
exhibition, be handled so there is minimal risk of harm to the animal 
and to the public, with sufficient distance and/or barriers between the 
animal and the general viewing public so as to assure the safety of 
animals and the public (9 CFR 2.131(c)(1)). APHIS ensures licensees 
meet these criteria and are compliant with the regulations during on-
site inspections of the facilities prior to licensure and at various 
intervals throughout the 3-year license period (regularly scheduled 
routine inspections and focused inspections following up on non-
compliances or in response to complaints). We believe that providing 
greater regulatory clarity regarding the requirements to demonstrate 
``adequate experience and knowledge'' of the species being maintained 
and to maintain ``sufficient distance and/or barriers between the 
animal and the general viewing public'' would benefit licensees, Animal 
Care inspectors, and the public, and would aid in the enforcement of 
the AWA.
    Insufficient experience and knowledge of personnel and inadequate 
safeguards in activities involving exhibited animals can endanger both 
the animals and the public, particularly in activities involving public 
contact with wild or exotic animals. In 2021, 44.4 percent (969/2182) 
of APHIS' licensed exhibitors offered interactions between the public 
and animals as part of their business, representing a 1.8-fold increase 
from 2019 (25 percent; 505/2024). Between 2019 and 2021, 119 
``handling'' non-compliances were reported in eFile on APHIS inspection 
reports, 12.6 percent of which led to human or animal injury, or animal 
death. Species used in such interactions include large carnivores, 
megavertebrates, and nonhuman primates. Most interactions involved full 
contact (32 percent) or protected contact (43.7 percent) interactions 
between animals and the public. The risks to public safety inherent in 
these activities place the animals involved at an increased risk for 
harm. In situations in which an animal may pose a risk to public safety 
(for example, a child entering an animal's enclosure), the animal may 
be euthanized or otherwise harmed in an attempt to protect the public.
    Another area that may warrant amendment of the current regulations 
is environmental enrichment for regulated animals. The current 
regulations regarding environmental enrichment are limited to 
addressing the needs of non-human primates and marine mammals. These 
requirements include developing, documenting, and following a plan 
addressing the non-human primates' social needs (9 CFR 3.81(a)), and a 
physical environment allowing the non-human primates to express 
species-typical activities (9 CFR 3.81(b)).
    It is well-understood that environmental enrichment for animals 
under a licensee's care is vital to their psychological health and 
welfare. The most common concern regarding enrichment noted by APHIS 
inspectors of licensees exhibiting species other than non-human 
primates has been a complete lack of any enrichment or a barren 
environment, followed by single housing of social species, and an 
inability to express species-typical behaviors.
    In light of the concerns regarding interactions between wild or 
exotic animals and the public, the lack of specificity regarding the 
requirement to demonstrate ``adequate experience and knowledge'' in the 
species being maintained, and the lack of requirements for 
environmental enrichment of all regulated animals, APHIS is 
contemplating amendments to the regulations.

Definitions of Category 1, 2, and 3 Animals

    To ensure that any regulations we promulgate regarding the public 
handling of exhibited animals account for the varying levels of risk 
involved with different species, we are contemplating categorizing 
animals into three categories.
    Category 1 animals would refer to exotic or wild animals with the 
capability or potential to cause severe injury, dismemberment, or death 
to the public or staff. Animals in this category would include 
cheetahs, panthers, bobcats, lynxes, bears, wolves, coyotes, large 
primates (macaques, baboons, nonbrachiating species larger than 33 
pounds, great apes), killer whales, walruses, zebras and zebra hybrids, 
large bovids (for example, bushbucks, kudus, nyalas, elands, bongos, 
sitatungas, bisons, buffalos, anoas, saolas, guars, bantengs, non-
domesticated yaks, roans, sables, bluebucks, oryxes, addaxes, 
waterbucks, kobs, lechwes, and reedbucks), elephants, rhinoceroses, 
exotic canids (not otherwise listed), hippopotamuses, hyenas, clouded 
leopards, wolverines, onagers, Przewalski's horses, and wild asses.
    Category 2 animals would include exotic or wild animals with the 
capability or potential to cause injury to the public or staff that is 
serious but not likely to be severe or life-threatening. Animals in 
this category would include small primates (callitrichids, capuchins, 
squirrel monkeys, lemurs, spider monkeys, gibbons, small African 
primate species), sloths, coatis, river

[[Page 1153]]

otters, raccoons, camels, dolphins, pinnipeds, giraffes, kangaroos, 
other wild or exotic mammals (not otherwise listed in any category), 
wallabies, skunks/polecats, foxes, other primates (not otherwise listed 
in any category), wolf hybrids, medium bovids (for example, gazelles, 
springboks, blackbucks, gerenuks, duikers, impalas, tsessebes, topis, 
bonteboks, blesboks, hartebeests, wildebeests), servals, caracals, sand 
cats, ocelots, feline hybrid crosses, other exotic felines (not 
otherwise listed in any category), nondomestic pigs, okapis, beluga 
whales, wallaroos, meerkats, other marine mammals, civets, minks, giant 
anteaters, aardvarks, martins, mongooses, koalas, tapirs, peccaries, 
jaguarundis, javelinas, pigmy hippos, and other exotic canids (foxes, 
singing dogs, jackals, bush dogs).
    Category 3 animals would include common farm animals and ``pocket 
pets'' (small exotic and domestic mammals) that are unlikely to cause 
serious injury to the public or staff. Animals in this category would 
include farm animals as defined by the AWA regulations in 9 CFR 1.1 
(such as domestic bovines, sheep, goats, llamas, horses, domestic pigs, 
and rabbits, among others), guinea pigs, other cavy species, hedgehogs, 
other rodents, small and large cervids, opossums, porcupines, ferrets, 
kinkajous, armadillos, capybaras, sugar gliders, tenrecs, tamanduas, 
degus, agoutis, and guanacos.
    We are seeking comment on whether classifying the animals is a 
useful regulatory framework and whether we have classified the above 
animals into the appropriate risk categories. Particularly, we are 
interested in receiving comments on whether any animals should be added 
or removed from the lists of animals that we have tentatively 
classified as Category 1, 2, or 3, and, if the animal should be removed 
from its current classification, which category it should be placed in.

Types of Public Contact Activities With Exhibited Animals

    With the aforementioned categories in mind, we are considering 
specifying regulatory requirements regarding public contact with 
animals that are commensurate with the risk posed by such animals. We 
are considering formulating such regulations for four types of public 
contact activities:
     Full contact activities: The public is in a shared space 
with animals with no barriers between the public and the animals, and 
direct physical contact is permitted or encouraged. Examples may 
include hand-feeding animals, photo opportunities, other hands-on 
encounters with animals, or rides on animals, all of which take place 
without any barriers in place between the public and the animal(s).
     Protected contact activities: A partial barrier separates 
the public and the animals, an attendant is present, and direct 
physical contact is permitted. Examples may include certain feeding 
activities, certain photo opportunities, certain drive-through exhibits 
(where guests are able to hand-feed or touch animals), or exhibits with 
PVC treat tubes.
     Walk-/Drive-Through Exhibits: The public is in shared 
space with animals, but direct physical contact is not permitted. 
Examples may include aviary-type exhibits, kangaroo walk-abouts, or 
drive-through parks where guests are in ``closed'' vehicles and are 
unable to feed or touch the animals.
     Performances: Performing animal shows in which there may 
be a partial barrier or no barrier between the public and animals, and 
direct physical contact is not permitted.
    We are seeking comment on whether the above categories are 
appropriate, and if the distinctions between these four types of public 
contact activities are sufficiently clear, or whether they need further 
clarification.

Public Contact Activities With Exhibited Animals

    For all public contact activities outlined above (full contact 
activities, protected contact activities, walk-/drive-through exhibits, 
and performances) involving regulated animals, we are considering 
developing general requirements that would promote animal welfare by 
minimizing risk to the animals, facility staff, and the public and that 
are commensurate with the risk posed by such animals.
    Regulations could include, for example, activity-specific 
restrictions that would minimize risk; training requirements for the 
licensee and its employees; restrictions on participants (for example, 
age or number of people participating); and requirements for the animal 
involved (considering, for example, the risk to the public posed by the 
animal, including the animal's age, stage of development, or 
vaccination status).
    We are considering requiring licensees to develop and implement a 
written plan specifying the measures that they will take to ensure 
compliance with the regulatory requirements for all public contact 
activities. The written plan would need to be signed and approved by an 
attending veterinarian and be available, upon request, for review by 
APHIS officials. A failure to follow the written plan would constitute 
a non-compliance with the AWA regulations and may result in enforcement 
proceedings.
    We are seeking comment on our approach to regulating public contact 
activities with exhibited animals. Particularly, we are interested in 
receiving comments on the following questions:
     What general requirements should apply to all public 
contact activities, regardless of category (or species) of animal 
involved?
     What requirements or restrictions should apply to each of 
the four types of public contact activities involving Category 1 
animals?
     What requirements or restrictions should apply to each of 
the four types of public contact activities involving Category 2 
animals?
     What requirements or restrictions should apply to each of 
the four types of public contact activities involving Category 3 
animals?
     Are there any requirements or restrictions that should 
apply only to a particular species involved in any one of the four 
types of public contact activities?
     Should any specific type of public contact activity 
involving any specific category of animal (or species) be prohibited?
     Should we require that an exhibitor file a written report 
within a specified period of time in the event of an animal escape, 
animal injury, or injury to the licensee or a member of the licensee's 
staff or the public? Should this requirement be limited to escapes or 
injuries involving specific categories (or species) of animals?
     If we choose to require a written plan specifying the 
measures that the licensee will take to ensure compliance with the 
regulatory requirements for all public contact activities, what 
specific requirements should the attending veterinarian consider when 
reviewing and/or approving public contact activities for each category 
(or species) of animal?
     What direct costs may be associated with developing a 
written plan for compliance for all public contact activities, 
including the cost and time it may take to develop a plan?
     Are there any reasonably foreseeable indirect costs (e.g., 
opportunity costs or overhead) that stem from the direct costs of 
developing a plan?

[[Page 1154]]

Training of Individuals Handling Wild or Exotic Animals

    We are also contemplating adding regulations regarding the training 
of licensees and staff of exhibitors who handle Category 1 and 2 
animals at any time (including, but not limited to, handling during 
public contact activities). We welcome comments regarding training 
requirements that licensed exhibitors should be required to meet. We 
are particularly interested in comments regarding the nature of 
training that currently exists in the absence of APHIS requirements, 
including, but not limited to, the required duration and content of 
training, any particular training requirements for exhibitors who 
handle particular categories or species of animals, any differences in 
training requirements based on the extent or nature of the employee or 
volunteer's interaction with the animal, and any challenges that may 
exist in obtaining the necessary training. We are also seeking public 
comment on the costs that could be associated with training, if we were 
to require it, including the length of time that would be required to 
complete the training.

Environmental Enrichment for Animals

    As noted earlier, the regulations currently only contain 
requirements for the environmental enrichment of non-human primates and 
marine mammals. We are contemplating adding regulatory requirements to 
address species-specific environmental enrichment for all regulated 
animals. Enrichments may address the psychological needs of species 
known to exist in social groups; species-specific feeding, foraging, 
and food acquisition behaviors; and enclosure space, lighting, and 
design that allow for species-typical behaviors.
    Environmental enrichment requirements could be implemented as 
performance standards, and licensees and registrants would be able to 
use their own expertise to determine the specific measures that they 
would implement to meet the proposed requirements. If this approach 
were adopted, we would require licensees and registrants to develop and 
implement a written plan specifying the measures that they would take 
to provide for the environmental enrichment of the animals in their 
care that would be signed and approved by an attending veterinarian and 
made available to APHIS officials upon request. We anticipate that the 
licensee/registrant would be required to monitor the plan on an ongoing 
basis in order to ensure compliance with the plan and to make 
adjustments if warranted.
    We are seeking comment on this approach to regulating environmental 
enrichment for regulated animals. Particularly, we are interested in 
receiving comments on the following questions:
     What, if any, general environmental enrichments should be 
required for all species?
     What environmental enrichments addressing psychological 
needs should be required for social species (in general or for 
particular species)?
     What environmental enrichments addressing natural feeding, 
foraging, and food acquisition behaviors should be required for animals 
in general, for certain taxa of animals, or for particular species?
     What environmental enrichments addressing enclosure space, 
lighting, and design to allow for species-typical behaviors should be 
required for animals in general, for certain taxa of animals, or for 
particular species?
     Are there other components or types of environmental 
enrichments we should consider when developing environmental enrichment 
requirements for certain taxa of animals or for particular species?
     If we choose to require a written plan, what specific 
requirements should the attending veterinarian consider when reviewing 
and/or approving the written plan?
     If environmental enrichment requirements were presented as 
performance standards, what guidance could APHIS provide to assist 
licensees and registrants to meet the performance standards?
     What direct costs may be associated with providing 
environment enrichment for the potentially affected animals in each 
category?
     Are there any reasonably foreseeable indirect costs (e.g., 
opportunity costs or overhead) that stem from these direct costs?

Environmental Impacts

    APHIS seeks public comment on whether the changes being considered 
may require the preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). Comments will help inform APHIS as to the 
applicability of NEPA to modifications to the regulations regarding the 
handling of wild or exotic animals and environmental enrichment for 
animals.

Economic Considerations

    APHIS seeks public comment on economic cost considerations for 
businesses, and in particular small businesses, associated with the 
amendments being considered. Specifically, we invite public comments on 
the number of entities that would be potentially impacted by the 
amendments to the regulations should we proceed to a proposed rule, and 
the costs associated with these amendments, and detailed comments on 
any additional costs that could be associated with the amendments to 
the regulations.
    We welcome all comments on the issues outlined above and encourage 
the inclusion of supporting data.

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of December, 2022.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-00021 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P