Handling of Animals; Contingency Plans

CourtAnimal And Plant Health Inspection Service
Citation86 FR 68533
Record Number2021-26174
Publication Date03 December 2021
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 230 (Friday, December 3, 2021)
[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
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT