Proposed Rule2022-03565
Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal Welfare Act
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 22, 2022
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Abstract
We are proposing to amend the regulations to establish standards governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds, excluding birds bred for use in research, covered under the Animal Welfare Act. This action would ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds not bred for use in research and covered under the Act.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9880-9913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03565]
[[Page 9879]]
Vol. 87
Tuesday,
No. 35
February 22, 2022
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3
Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal
Welfare Act; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 9880]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3
[Docket No. APHIS-2020-0068]
RIN 0579-AE61
Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal
Welfare Act
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations to establish
standards governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of birds, excluding birds bred for use in research,
covered under the Animal Welfare Act. This action would ensure the
humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds not bred
for use in research and covered under the Act.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April
25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federale Rulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
Enter APHIS-2020-0068 in the Search field. Select the Documents tab,
then select the Comment button in the list of documents.
<bullet> Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2020-0068, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or in our reading room, which is
located in room 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Cody M. Yager, DVM, Supervisory
Animal Care Specialist, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84,
Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3751; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10737f74693e7d3e697177756250656374713e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="04676b607d2a692a7d6563617644717760652a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>. Secondary
Contact: Dr. David Miller, DVM, Ph.D., National Animal Welfare
Specialist, Animal Care, APHIS, 2150 Centre Ave., Building B, Mailstop
3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526; (301) 851-3751; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85e1e4f3ece1abf6abe8ece9e9e0f7c5f0f6e1e4abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0d4d1c6d9d49ec39eddd9dcdcd5c2f0c5c3d4d19ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et
seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate
standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, 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 (USDA) 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 are established under the AWA and are contained in 9 CFR
parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below as the regulations). Part 1
contains definitions for terms used in parts 2 and 3; part 2 provides
administrative requirements and sets forth institutional
responsibilities for regulated parties; and part 3 contains
specifications for the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals covered by the AWA. Currently, part 3
consists of subparts A through E, which contain specific standards for
dogs and cats, guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates,
and marine mammals, respectively, and subpart F, which sets forth
general standards for warmblooded animals not otherwise specified in
that part.
The Act initially defined animal to mean ``live dogs, cats, monkeys
(nonhuman primate mammals), guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits.'' In
1970, amendments to the Act expanded the definition of animal to
include ``any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal),
guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the
Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for
research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a
pet,'' and to explicitly exclude horses not used for research purposes
and other farm animals; amendments in 1976 clarified that dogs used for
hunting, security, or breeding purposes fell within the scope of the
Act.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 \1\ (the ``Farm
Bill'') included provisions that amended the definition of animal in
the Act yet again by specifically excluding birds, rats of the genus
Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research. While the
definition of animal contained in the AWA regulations at that time
excluded rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for
use in research, that definition also excluded all birds, not just
those birds bred for use in research. Congress' amendment to the Act
meant that birds not bred for research and not otherwise excluded under
its provisions were, for the first time, explicitly subject to AWA
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 107-171, May 13, 2002; the text can be viewed at
<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ171/pdf/PLAW-107publ171.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ171/pdf/PLAW-107publ171.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a final rule published on June 4, 2004 in the Federal Register
(69 FR 31513-31514, Docket No. 98-106-3), we amended the definition of
animal in the AWA regulations to make it consistent with the revised
definition of animal in the Act by limiting the exclusion to only those
birds bred for use in research (i.e., breeding stock). On the same
date, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (69 FR
31537-31541, Docket No. 98-106-4) notifying the public that we intended
to extend enforcement of the AWA to birds not bred for use in research
that are sold as pets at the wholesale level, or transported in
commerce, or used for exhibition, research, teaching, testing, or
experimentation purposes. To determine what regulations and standards
are appropriate for those birds, we solicited and received 7,486 public
comments and began reviewing these comments preliminary to drafting a
proposed rule.
Beginning in 2013, several animal welfare organizations filed
lawsuits against USDA for failure to promulgate regulations for birds
not bred for use in research. As a result of one of those lawsuits,\2\
on January 10, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
found that the AWA requires APHIS to issue standards applicable to
birds not bred for use in research and that APHIS has not issued such
standards. On remand, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted the parties' joint motion to stay the action and
adopted the parties' proposed rulemaking schedule, ordering that USDA
must publish a proposed rule establishing regulatory standards for
birds not more than 18 months after publication of a notice of
listening sessions, and promulgate them in a final rule to be published
in the Federal Register no later than 1 year from that proposed rule's
publication date. We
[[Page 9881]]
published the notice for a listening session, discussed below, on
August 20, 2020, which under the Court's order requires that we publish
the proposed rule no later than Tuesday, February 22, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Anti-Vivisection Society and Avian Welfare
Coalition v. USDA, 946 F.3d 615 (D.C. Cir. 2020): https://
www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/
80846063820C52F6852584EB005413E4/$file/19-5015-1823484.pdf.
\3\ February 20, 2022, falls on a Sunday, and Monday, February
21, is a Federal holiday. As a result, the Court-imposed deadline
would be the next business day that the Federal Register publishes,
which is Tuesday, February 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the Court's requirement that we publish a proposed rule, we
believe there to be a significant welfare-based need for regulating
birds and agree that this rulemaking is necessary. Although we
currently do not consider birds when inspecting regulated facilities
maintaining other animals due to the absence of AWA regulations
regarding standards for birds, APHIS receives complaints from the
public about inhumane conditions for birds. Additionally, if APHIS
inspectors find birds kept in such conditions in the course of other
duties, they are instructed to report their observations to the
appropriate local or State authority. Moreover, some commenters during
the listening sessions provided video and photographic documentation of
birds held in unsanitary and inhumane conditions at several facilities
across the United States. Based on our experience with animal welfare
issues in the currently regulated community, we recognize that there
are common challenges to maintaining humane conditions for animals--
regardless of species--pertaining to shelter, health, husbandry,
transport, and related needs. As a community covered under the AWA,
persons dealing in, exhibiting, and transporting birds are also
responsible for providing these needs. The standards we are proposing
for birds include requirements that ensure animal welfare in the same
areas of need.
Accordingly, we are proposing to establish new regulations and
standards and amend existing regulations governing the humane handling,
care, treatment, and transportation of birds covered by the AWA.
Specifically, we propose to establish and amend definitions of terms
used throughout parts 2 and 3 to inform licensees and registrants of
their responsibilities under the Act with respect to birds that are not
bred for use in research and not otherwise exempted from regulation. We
also propose to amend several sections in part 2 to clarify the
requirements and responsibilities for regulated parties with birds.
Finally, we propose to establish specific standards in a new subpart in
part 3 for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of
birds covered under the AWA.
Notice of Listening Sessions
As noted above, the schedule ordered by the District Court required
APHIS to publish a notice of virtual listening sessions to gather
comments on the topic of establishing standards for birds prior to
drafting a proposed rule. We scheduled three virtual listening sessions
and published a notice in the Federal Register (85 FR 51368, Docket No.
APHIS-2020-0068) asking the public to comment on establishing
exemptions for dealers, exhibitors, and certain bird species and
activities; licensing thresholds; performance-based standards; and ways
of minimizing potential disturbances to nesting and breeding resulting
from compliance inspections and implementation of standards.
We received 10,330 written comments on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> \4\ in
response to the listening session notice, as well as approximately 75
comments excerpted from the three listening session transcripts.
Comments came from breeders and fanciers of finches, canaries, parrots,
cockatiels, and other pet and show birds; raptor breeders,
conservationists, and hobbyists; exotic poultry hobbyists; owners and
breeders of show and racing pigeons; national and regional animal
welfare organizations; organizations representing zoos, shelters, and
rescues; avian veterinarians, ornithologists, and aviculturists;
organizations promoting the conservation of waterfowl and wild birds; a
Federal government agency; and members of the public. We have reviewed
and considered all of the comments, which we have summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To view the comments we received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
Enter APHIS-2020-0068 in the Search field. Transcripts of the
listening sessions are available at <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/aw-news/bird-listening-sessions">https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/aw-news/bird-listening-sessions</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemptions From Licensing
The current regulations in Sec. 2.1(a)(3) include licensing
exemptions based on criteria such as how the animals are used, whether
and how they are sold, and size of business based on gross income or
the number of covered animals maintained.
An exemption is provided for dealers who maintain four or fewer
breeding females of pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or
domesticated farm type animals and offer their offspring for sale. Also
exempted in this section are retail pet stores as the term is defined
in Sec. 1.1,\5\ dealers who breed and sell 25 or fewer dogs and/or
cats to research facilities annually, individuals who solely buy, sell,
transport, or negotiate the sale, purchase, or transportation of an
animal for food or fiber, and exhibitors covered under the AWA who
maintain eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals
(sometimes referred to colloquially as ``pocket'' mammals), and
domesticated farm type animals for exhibition. An income threshold
exemption applies to any person who sells or negotiates the sale or
purchase of any animal except wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats,
and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of such
animals during any calendar year. Finally, any person who buys animals
solely for his or her own use or enjoyment and does not sell or exhibit
animals is exempt from licensing if not otherwise required to obtain
one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Retail pet store is defined as a place of business or
residence at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for
sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally
observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that
animal after purchase, and where only the following animals are sold
or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets: Dogs, cats,
rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers,
chinchillas, domesticated ferrets, domesticated farm-type animals,
birds, and coldblooded species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the listening sessions, we asked for comments and supporting
data on adding or revising licensing exemptions for certain dealers,
exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate
handlers of birds not bred for use in research. We also asked
specifically if certain species of birds should be exempted. The
comments that immediately follow address these questions, including the
status of birds at shelters, birds that are part of conservation
efforts, and the scope of regulatory authority. Comments for exemptions
based on business size appear in the section following this one, under
``De Minimis Exemptions.''
Several commenters suggested that all bird breeders be exempted
from regulation, with one stating that it has not been demonstrated
that the current welfare of birds in breeding facilities are deficient
and that bird breeders are continually improving captive bird care. A
few commenters recommended that all persons exhibiting birds at shows
be exempt from regulation.
On the other hand, a substantial number of commenters asked that
all birds covered under the Act be subject to the regulations,
regardless of species or use, particularly as some States do not have
laws protecting birds. Many other commenters stated that there should
be no exemptions for birds sold
[[Page 9882]]
in retail pet stores, noting that some pet stores house birds in poor
sanitary conditions. One commenter added that no persons selling birds
at auction should be exempt, stating that these are often the most
egregious of offenders with respect to animal abuse.
Some commenters noted that many persons keep birds to preserve
threatened or endangered species and safeguard them from extinction due
to habitat loss and other threats, and recommended that any exemptions
for wholesale trade and exhibition should also include birds bred for
conservation or for sale or transfer to other breeding programs. On the
other hand, a commenter stated that the majority of bird breeding in
the United States ostensibly done in the name of conservation
contributes little or nothing to conservation efforts because most
captive breeding is done outside of official species survival plans and
conservation efforts.
We also asked whether certain species of birds should qualify for
exemption from licensing. In response, we received a wide range of
explanations as to why certain species of birds covered under the AWA
should or should not require a license.
Many bird owners and the organizations representing them commented
that most non-agricultural bird species kept in the United States are
for personal enjoyment and not for profit and should be exempted from
AWA licensing.
Some commenters stated that the AWA should only be concerned about
inspecting budgies, cockatiels, and other common species of birds bred
for profit for the pet market. Several commenters stated that persons
breeding or maintaining any types of finches, canaries, or songbirds
should be exempt from licensing due to the enormous number of species,
subspecies, and hybrids kept and their special requirements.
Commenters concerned about species conservation asked that we
exempt from licensing breeders of endangered and non-native bird
species, including rare poultry and waterfowl.
Several persons with an interest in raptors commented that existing
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
regulations likely meet or exceed proposed AWA standards and that no
additional regulations are needed to ensure raptor welfare. Many noted
that raptor owners are already subject to a robust regulatory system
and that any new standards and regulations for most captive raptor
breeders would be burdensome and duplicative. Some commenters stated
that State and local laws already provide an adequate layer of
regulation to ensure the welfare of their birds. Several commenters
stated that raptors are migratory birds, not ``pet animals'' as defined
in Sec. 1.1, with some noting that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) already covers raptors. A commenter noted
that falconers fall under the definition of neither ``dealer'' nor
``exhibitor,'' and the few that engage in exhibition should be exempted
de minimis.
On the other hand, a commenter representing an animal welfare
organization noted that the USDA has never considered activities
regulated under other Federal, State, and local laws as a basis for
granting exemptions for regulated activities and species from the AWA's
requirements. Other commenters opined that the AWA does not
discriminate or authorize the agency to discriminate between different
species of warmblooded animals, or between different regulated uses,
and that all are protected under the Act. In addition, a commenter
noted that raptors are large animals and asked that they not be subject
to the exhibitor licensing exemption.
A commenter representing the USFWS noted that exhibition of
migratory birds and raptors is the primary area of overlap between that
agency and the USDA with respect to regulation. The commenter stated
that it is important that agencies are not in conflict with respect to
regulating birds.
Several commenters asked that persons maintaining racing and show
pigeons be exempt from licensing. One commenter stated that most pigeon
racers are not dealers or exhibitors and therefore should be exempt
from regulation. The commenter added that pigeon racing has elements of
the farm in its origins and that farm animals are excluded from AWA
regulation.
Conversely, one commenter stated that racing pigeons are prone to
disease due to inadequate sanitation and veterinary care, that
prominent race organizers and veterinarians acknowledge that disease
leads to substantial numbers of racing pigeon deaths, and that racing
pigeons pose a threat of spreading disease among wild pigeons and
domestic poultry.
We received several comments from persons and organizations on the
subject of bird rescues and shelters. Several commenters emphasized
that rescues should never be exempt from inspections or regulations.
Many commenters expressed concern about animal welfare, overcrowding,
and health and sanitation conditions at bird rescues and shelters, and
supported regulation of such facilities under the AWA. A commenter
suggested that rescues who accept public donations or charge admission
to their facilities should be required to be licensed just as mammal
facilities are. Another commenter indicated that rescues and
sanctuaries for pet birds that receive government grant money should
not be exempt and be held to a higher standard. On the other hand,
other commenters asked that shelters and rescues be exempted from
licensing and that caregivers who foster or shelter birds on a
temporary basis should be exempted also.
Some commenters asked that persons maintaining wild bird species be
exempted from licensing. One commenter stated that for many wild
species, the appropriate conditions for maintaining them are unknown
and would need to be determined once the birds are brought into
captivity. The commenter added that the range of taxa is broad and that
species within a taxon may have very different requirements. Other
commenters stated that all wild bird rescues should be subject to
regulation and licensing.
One commenter asked that we be careful in describing wild birds
with the terms ``domestic/domesticated,'' ``non-domestic/exotic,'' and
``wild/wildlife.'' The commenter noted that domesticated species of
certain birds have husbandry and veterinary needs that differ
substantially from those of closely related, captive-managed wild
species.
De Minimis Exemptions
Section 2133 of the Act includes the provision that ``a dealer or
exhibitor shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or
exhibitor under this chapter if the size of the business is determined
by the Secretary to be de minimis.'' Section 2.1(a)(3) of the current
regulations includes de minimis threshold licensing exemptions for
dealers (including breeders) and exhibitors of AWA-covered animals
based on gross income, numbers of animals maintained, and intended use
of the animals, with exemptions granted accordingly for businesses
under each threshold.
During the listening sessions, we asked persons to comment on
whether there are thresholds beyond which an entity should not be
required to be licensed. We noted that most bird breeding businesses
are very small and invited persons to comment on what threshold
criteria we might use to exempt such entities from licensing, which by
their size have historically
[[Page 9883]]
posed an insignificant, or de minimis, risk to animal welfare.
Several commenters requested that we exempt certain dealers and
exhibitors of birds from licensing, and many suggested specific
exemption thresholds based on income or number of birds bred or
exhibited. Many commenters asked that the exemption in Sec.
2.1(a)(3)(i), the retail pet store exemption, remain in place for birds
sold at retail.
One commenter stated that APHIS cannot exempt birds beyond the
plain text of the AWA and its existing de minimis exemption, adding
that the AWA statute plainly applies to warm-blooded animals that are
used for regulated activities.
Some commenters stated that any individual or facility that raises
fewer than 500 birds per year should be considered de minimis and
exempt from regulation. Another commenter asked that the regulatory
threshold be set at 500 or fewer breeding pairs of parakeets, finches,
and other small birds, and 200 or fewer breeding pairs of larger birds
such as parrots and gamebirds. The commenter asked that offspring not
be counted toward the total number of pairs. Another commenter
suggested that facilities with fewer than 100 breeding female birds
should be exempt regardless of sales volume. Yet another recommended
that small breeding operations (up to 25 pairs of birds) should be
exempted from licensing under the AWA regulations and that not doing so
will impose unnecessary regulatory burden on the public and APHIS
personnel.
Other commenters recommended that proposed bird regulations follow
the current de minimis thresholds for other animals in the regulations.
One such commenter asked that we harmonize the bird regulations with--
but not expand--the de minimis exemptions in Sec. 2.1(a)(3)(iii).
A commenter recommended that birds under 4 pounds should not be
regulated or require licensing. Another commenter stated that if
someone cares for non-wild birds and some of those birds generate
offspring unintentionally, such persons should be exempt from
licensing.
One commenter stated that although an aviary may breed many birds,
the total sales may only be $100 or less per year. In contrast, the
commenter noted, a pair of hyacinth macaws may produce a single chick
per year that sells for $10,000. The commenter noted that one pair of
birds producing a single chick per year is below the level that USDA
should spend resources on regulating even though the dollar amount is
above what is considered de minimis. On this point, another commenter
stated that birds with low monetary value are often subjected to the
cruelest of conditions and in greatest need of oversight.
One commenter stated that to avoid the creation of a double
standard for birds, any proposed regulations must exclude from the
exemption in Sec. 2.1(a)(3)(ii) all exotic or wild birds just as it
currently does for all other covered wild or exotic animals. Another
commenter stated that the exemption from licensing for facilities with
annual sales not exceeding $500 is inadequate. Due to the capital
expenditure and time investment required for successful hobby
aviculture, the commenter recommended a threshold of $50,000.
With respect to bird exhibitors, a few commenters stated the need
for an exemption like the current one in Sec. 2.1(a)(3)(vii) for
exhibitors of eight or fewer pet type or ``pocket'' mammal species.
One commenter who recommended against allowing species-specific
exemptions for birds noted that the only current de minimis exemptions
in the regulations that could reasonably apply to birds would be for
``domesticated farm-type animals,'' which could include domesticated
species of chickens, ducks, and turkeys.
Performance-Based Standards
Section 2143 of the Act provides that standards for the humane care
of animals must include requirements for handling, housing, feeding,
watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather and
temperatures, adequate veterinary care, and, when warranted, separation
by species. The AWA regulations in 9 CFR part 3 fulfill this statutory
obligation by listing standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of animals, grouped under separate
subparts for dogs and cats; guinea pigs and hamsters; rabbits; nonhuman
primates; marine mammals; and warmblooded animals not included in the
other subparts.
Most of the standards are performance-based, meaning that whenever
practicable they do not mandate a single, prescribed approach to
meeting the standard. For example, the standard for food storage and
bedding for dogs and cats in Sec. 3.1(e) states that ``supplies of
food and bedding must be stored in a manner that protects the supplies
from spoilage, contamination, and vermin infestation.'' Similarly, in
the proposed standards for birds under Sec. 3.150(e), we require that
``supplies of food, including food supplements, bedding, and substrate
must be stored in a manner that protects the supplies from spoilage,
contamination, and vermin infestation.'' In each case, the specific
manner and location of storage is not prescribed, and any approach that
protects the supplies from the conditions listed will meet the
standard.
To cite another example, Sec. 3.81 of the standards for nonhuman
primates requires that the primary enclosures of the animals be
provided with environmental enrichments for expressing noninjurious
species-typical activities, which includes perches, swings, mirrors,
and other increased cage complexities, and that species differences
should be considered when determining the type or methods of
enrichment. Likewise, we are proposing in Sec. 3.154 an environmental
enrichment standard for birds requiring that perches and other objects
provided to enrich a bird's environment be species-appropriate and
designed, constructed, and maintained so as to prevent harm to the
bird. Businesses may use their own experience and knowledge with the
species in question to determine the composition of the perches and
other objects, their size and location, and other relevant
considerations, so long as they are meeting the proposed standard.
Many of the comments we received during the listening sessions
noted the great number of bird species and the highly diverse care and
husbandry needs of each, and remarked on the challenge of establishing
a single set of standards that could accommodate the scope of these
needs. We acknowledge the concerns of these commenters and agree that
birds constitute a uniquely diverse class, which is why we consider a
performance-based, flexible approach to standards for birds especially
important.
We asked commenters whether there are appropriate performance-based
standards that could cover the wide variety of bird species. We also
asked persons to comment on the feasibility of separating birds into
smaller classes and setting performance-based standards appropriate for
each class, and what such classes might look like.
A number of commenters supported regulating the humane handling,
care, treatment, and transportation of covered birds under the existing
standards in part 3, subpart F, which cover warmblooded animals other
than dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, and
marine mammals. Other commenters supported the establishment of
standards developed specifically for birds. Many commenters recommended
that any performance standards developed for
[[Page 9884]]
birds should consider their specific physiological and behavioral
needs.
An animal welfare organization proposed a set of avian performance
standards to serve as a regulatory model and asked that they be
included as a separate section in part 3 and reflected accordingly in
parts 1 and 2. We note that the standards submitted by the commenter
reflect in large part the standards we propose, with requirements that
address handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation,
shelter, veterinary care, separation of species as warranted, and
environmental enrichment.
A commenter asked APHIS to consult with ornithological professional
organizations before drafting standards for birds, and others
recommended that APHIS enlist the help of aviculturists and
organizations representing raptor and parrot owners, rescues,
conservation, and other avian interests to develop standards.
APHIS-Animal Care has engaged in such consultations to the extent
we can, which is standard practice for the program with regard to other
covered animals.
Conversely, several commenters questioned whether any set of
standards could be developed that would address the husbandry needs of
all bird species, with some noting that industry self-regulation has
failed to prevent substandard care, welfare, and husbandry of birds. As
we note in a previous section, some commenters submitted field reports,
photographs, and videos showing birds held in unsanitary and barren
cages throughout the United States and noted in particular the
unhealthy appearance of the birds and abnormal behaviors resulting from
confinement under such conditions.
One commenter stated that there are far too many species of exotic
birds kept in aviculture to be able to set up individual standards, and
another commented that generic standards that apply to large groups of
birds probably do not encompass the needs of all species, even in
family groups of birds. A commenter added that because the needs of
many birds are influenced by age, geographical location, and seasonal
changes, specifying exact standards of care may not allow enough
flexibility to address these variable factors. One commenter
acknowledged that due to the wide differences in size, morphology,
diet, and social structure in the class Aves, it is impossible to
present one set of minimum housing standards for all avian species.
Some commenters stated that the aviculturist community already has
adequate best practices in place and that no government regulation is
necessary. Several cited the Model Avicultural Program, adding that it
represents a higher level of care than is typically required for AWA
licensing.
While the program cited by these commenters includes general
housing, husbandry, and other standards that we consider to be
appropriately species-specific and performance-based, the standards we
propose in this rule are both more detailed and comprehensive and
include additional requirements governing transportation, enrichment,
research uses, and identification, among others. We consider these
requirements to be necessary to maintain consistency with the current
regulations for mammals and to ensure a level of animal welfare
commensurate with that required by the AWA.
Facilities and Operating Standards
While some commenters proposed standards that differ in degree from
those we have proposed, we agree with the majority of comments from the
listening sessions indicating that facility and operating standards for
regulating birds must address their special physiological, anatomical,
behavioral, and psychological needs, and the standards we have proposed
have been developed with those needs in mind. We discuss those
standards in greater detail below.
Enclosures
In accordance with the Act, we include enclosure standards in each
subpart of part 3 to ensure that captive animals are confined safely
and humanely. For example, the general standards for primary enclosures
for dogs and cats under subpart A require that they be constructed and
maintained so as to contain the animals securely, protect them against
injury, and provide sufficient space commensurate with the animal
species confined. The standards we propose for birds include similar
requirements that are performance-based and allow flexibility to meet
the wide diversity of needs among bird species cited by commenters.
Several commenters addressed the topic of bird enclosures,
particularly with respect to size and the ability to permit movement. A
few commenters submitted proposed standards that include detailed,
performance-based shelter specifications for space, flooring and
surfaces, lighting, humidity, and air quality. One such commenter noted
that overcrowding causes stress in birds and spreads disease, and that
small enclosures can cause stereotypic behaviors such as spot picking
and route tracing. Some commenters also asked APHIS to develop
standards requiring that enclosures be large enough to allow natural
fliers to have enough space to fly, while other commenters stated that
birds need room to stretch and flap wings, but not necessarily to fly.
We note that the standards we propose for enclosures mirror to a
large degree those submitted by commenters, the objective being to
provide an environment that ensures humane treatment of animals as
required by the Act. The standard in proposed Sec. 3.153(b) requires
that the space in all primary enclosures housing birds be adequate and
allow for normal postural and social adjustments, such as dust-bathing
and foraging, with adequate freedom of movement and freedom to escape
from aggression demonstrated by other animals in the enclosure
according to the program of veterinary care developed, documented in
writing, and signed by the attending veterinarian. While we acknowledge
the desire by many commenters that sufficient enclosure space be
available for birds to fly, birds can be in good health and maintained
humanely in accordance with the Act without such a requirement.
A commenter stated that due to the way pigeons live in communities
and can tolerate disease, standards for lofts must be specific to the
species. One commenter stated that wire flooring is harmful to the feet
of many birds and proposed that we set standards requiring safe, non-
toxic substrate (newspaper, towels, litter, straw, etc.) for the
species being housed. We include in this proposal a performance-based
requirement that floors of primary enclosures be constructed in a
manner that protects the birds' feet and legs from injury, which
addresses issues of harmful flooring regardless of composition, as well
as a requirement that substrate be safe and non-toxic to the birds
being housed.
Sanitation
As noted above, the AWA requires that sanitation standards for
regulated animals be issued for dealers, exhibitors, and research
facilities that keep those animals. In the existing AWA regulations,
consistent with this statutory obligation, we include standards for
facility sanitation within each subpart for dogs and cats, rabbits, and
other mammals. As with these standards, those that we propose for
facilities having birds require a sanitary, pest-free environment
conducive to their health and welfare but also allow for flexibility in
how the standards are
[[Page 9885]]
met. Consistent with what we are proposing, several commenters called
for standards specific to birds regarding waste disposal, food storage,
and enclosure and pool cleaning to reduce disease and pest hazards.
Lighting and Climate
As lighting and climate needs differ considerably among animal
species, the existing standards in the regulations for animals covered
under each subpart are performance-based to allow for lighting,
humidity, temperature, and other climatic considerations appropriate
for the species involved. We have proposed similar such standards for
birds to accommodate the widely different temperature, humidity, and
lighting needs of each species.
Some commenters advocated for more prescriptive lighting standards,
specifically natural or artificial light in the same spectrum as
sunlight. One commenter recommended that appropriate circadian rhythms
must also be provided for nocturnal species, as well as adequate
ventilation, temperature, and humidity control appropriate to the
species. We agree with the latter commenter that lighting should be
species-specific and need not mimic sunlight if the species is
nocturnal, and our proposed standards reflect that. Another commenter
stated that there should be standards to protect birds from sunlight
and extreme heat, with appropriate shelter from rain and snow. We agree
with this commenter, as providing shelter from weather extremes is
consistent with animal welfare.
Recordkeeping
The existing regulations require that dealers and exhibitors keep
and maintain records which fully disclose certain identification and
disposition information for animals other than dogs and cats that are
purchased or otherwise acquired, owned, held, leased, or otherwise in
their possession or under their control, or that they transport, sell,
euthanize, or otherwise dispose of. Among other things, the records
must include any offspring born of any animal while in the dealer's or
exhibitor's possession or under his or her control. Similarly,
operators of auction sales and brokers are required to maintain records
for any animal consigned for auction or sold, whether or not a fee or
commission is charged.
During the listening sessions, many commenters asked APHIS to
require that records be kept of all transactions for birds that are
sold or transferred to another owner. Commenters also called for APHIS
to require bird dealers and exhibitors to keep health records on their
birds.
On the other hand, several commenters stated that the recordkeeping
requirements now required for mammals would be unreasonable and
burdensome for commercial, high volume-produced birds such as budgies,
zebra finches, cockatiels, lovebirds, waterfowl, pigeons, and
gamebirds.
We propose to apply the existing recordkeeping requirements to
persons engaging in these AWA-covered activities involving birds,
unless otherwise exempt. We consider an accounting of each covered
animal important for the purposes of ensuring adequate health and
welfare, even for high-volume produced birds. If, for example, an
individual bird moved to or from a premises is diagnosed with a
serious, communicable disease, a record of that bird's movement is
necessary to protect other birds from potential exposure and harm.
Research Concerns
Regulations concerning AWA-covered animals at research facilities
are located in 9 CFR part 2, subpart C. They require that facilities
register with APHIS, that an Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (IACUC) be established to assess facility treatment and use
of animals, and that animals be treated by an attending veterinarian
under a program of veterinary care. Personnel and recordkeeping
requirements for research facilities are also included in subpart C. As
these regulations ensure that activities on animals at research
facilities are humanely designed and practiced in accordance with the
Act, we propose that they also be applied to birds not bred for use in
research.
Some commenters expressed concerns with the effects that
establishing AWA standards for birds could have on research activities.
A commenter stated that the proposed regulation would hamper
biomedical and ecological research using avian species. One commenter
stated that additional regulation could be detrimental to
ornithological research without improving protection for birds, noting
that unlike biomedical research and testing that does not benefit the
animals being used, such research is conducted for understanding bird
biology and ecology and is already regulated through the Public Health
Service.
A commenter asked USDA to clarify that neither a facility's IACUC
nor APHIS inspection is required for field research sites involving
wild birds. Another commenter asked that any proposed standards for
birds do not prohibit field surgeries on wild birds and that biologists
not be required to transport wild birds to dedicated facilities. APHIS'
proposed changes to the regulations do not require that field studies
involving wild birds be inspected, nor do we propose to prohibit field
surgeries on wild birds, provided that such activities are conducted in
accordance with current established veterinary medical procedures. As
provided in proposed Sec. 2.31(d)(1)(ix), we would not require that
persons transport wild birds to dedicated facilities for medical
procedures.
Animal Health and Husbandry
During the listening sessions, commenters frequently cited the need
for health and husbandry standards that are performance-based, noting
the wide range of requirements among different species of birds. The
current standards for other animals in Part 3 include performance-based
requirements for health and husbandry addressing grouping, feeding,
sanitation, and other needs. We have likewise proposed similar health
and husbandry standards for birds in this document that address the
needs cited by commenters.
Feeding and Watering
As noted above, the AWA requires that feeding and watering
standards be established for regulated animals for dealers, exhibitors,
and research facilities that contain those animals. In the existing
regulations, we have implemented this statutory obligation by
establishing feeding and watering standards. Generally, these require
that food be uncontaminated, nutritious, easily accessible, and
appropriate for the species involved. Current standards also require
that clean water be provided sufficient to maintain health and that
receptacles for food and water be kept clean and sanitary. Competent
bird dealers and exhibitors are knowledgeable as to the types of food
their birds require to remain in good health. As with persons
maintaining other types of animals covered under the regulations, we
acknowledge this fact, and as we have done with those animals, we have
proposed a feeding standard that is flexible enough to ensure the
health and well-being of all birds.
Several animal welfare organizations proposed performance standards
for the feeding and watering of birds consistent with the standards we
propose. We would require that food be nutritious, species-appropriate,
and presented in a manner that encourages natural foraging
[[Page 9886]]
behaviors specific to the species, which as one commenter noted is
exceptionally important to bird welfare.
Environmental Complexity
Many commenters during the listening sessions noted that some
species of birds are highly intelligent and social animals and can
benefit from being able to practice natural behaviors in captivity,
such as social interaction and foraging. Accordingly, they proposed
standards to provide species-appropriate environmental complexity for
birds in the living space to promote the expression of natural
behaviors and opportunities for positive interactions with the
environment. A commenter noted that species-specific perches,
substrates, hide boxes and shelters, visual barriers, and water and
dust baths are important to promoting such interactions and included
details of these in the standards proposed.
One commenter stated that parrots should receive special
consideration for enrichment under the AWA regulations because of their
taxonomic uniqueness, documented intelligence, and popularity in
domestic markets. Some commenters cited research showing that
enrichment activities such as foraging enhance the psychological well-
being of birds, reducing stereotypic behaviors and minimizing stress.
One commenter proposed that an environmental enrichment plan be
developed and maintained for all birds in consultation with a qualified
veterinarian or veterinary behaviorist, and that behavioral assessments
include a review of nutrition, husbandry, and housing to develop an
appropriate treatment plan.
APHIS agrees that environmental enrichment is important to ensuring
the health and well-being of birds consistent with the Act. We note
that the current regulations in subpart D, Sec. 3.81, require persons
maintaining nonhuman primates to provide an environmental enhancement
plan that includes enrichment requirements. Accordingly, we would
include similar enrichment requirements specifically for birds.
Contact With Birds
The existing AWA regulations contain provisions regarding contact
between captive animals being sold or exhibited and members of the
public. These are intended to protect persons from injury while
minimizing the risk of animals contracting a zoonotic disease,
receiving inappropriate food, or being handled in an inappropriate
manner. For example, a standard in each subchapter requires that
primary enclosures used to transport animals be constructed to ensure
that anyone handling the enclosure will not be in contact with the
animals contained inside. In this document we propose a similar
standard for birds.
Some commenters asked that APHIS create standards that restrict or
prohibit public contact and interaction with exhibited birds. One
commenter stated that exhibitors allow dangerous birds to be too close
to the public. Others opined that direct contact programs pose a
dramatically increased risk of zoonotic disease transmission between
humans and animals. A commenter cited research indicating that hand-
rearing of parrots and other birds can contribute to the development of
aberrant behaviors such as stereotypy and feather plucking.
On the other hand, a commenter stated that many birds desire and
will initiate interaction with their owners. Another commenter was
concerned that breeders would be restricted from hand-rearing and
handling young birds, noting that such activities are a necessary part
of taming. We are not proposing regulations that would restrict
breeders from handling their birds humanely.
Veterinary Care
Veterinary requirements applicable to all animals covered under the
Act are located in Sec. 2.40 of the regulations. These require that
each facility maintain a program of veterinary care and have an
attending veterinarian, as we acknowledge from commenter input to be
the current practice for many facilities that would be affected by the
proposed standards. Under the regulations we propose, birds covered
under the Act would be subject to veterinary requirements to ensure
animal welfare.
Several commenters stated that veterinary care should be a
requirement for all birds that are subject to AWA regulations. Several
such commenters proposed that regulated facilities be required to
maintain a program of preventative veterinary healthcare for regulated
birds, with annual physical exams for each bird and health records
maintained for each regulated bird and available for review by APHIS.
Many commenters called for health certificates for birds as is the case
for covered animals currently.
A majority of commenters asked that we establish regulations to
prohibit painful physical mutilations, including pinioning (disabling
wings), toe clipping, devoicing, and beak alterations. A commenter
recommended that when beak trimming is done for corrective purposes, it
should be performed by a qualified avian veterinarian, and clipping or
pinioning a bird's wings to prevent flight should be prohibited except
to address a specific health issue. We acknowledge commenter concerns
over these practices, but also acknowledge, as several commenters did
themselves, that there can sometimes be health-based reasons for the
practices. We encourage additional comments that address the concerns
raised in light of animal welfare.
Also, a commenter proposed that facilities be required to consult
with a veterinarian or nutritionist to formulate appropriate species-
specific diets, and that facilities follow and keep records of a
dietary plan that is reviewed annually by a qualified veterinarian or
nutritionist who has directly evaluated the animals at the facility. We
agree that the food provided to the birds should be species-specific
and nutritious. This could be accomplished by consulting a veterinarian
or nutritionist, but we do not consider recourse to a veterinarian or
nutritionist to be the only way of obtaining or validating this
information. Our proposed standards allow for such flexibility in
determining the appropriate diet for the birds.
Identification
We received a number of comments on the identification standards
for birds. Several commenters supported a standard requiring that all
birds have a humane form of permanent identification, such as a
microchip, leg band, or wing band.
Some commenters requested that we not require permanent forms of
identification on birds because they should not be subjected to
unnecessary stressful surgical procedures. Another commenter stated
that given the fragile nature of birds, ID marking should not be
required for live birds. The commenter recommended either leg bands or
microchips as being suitable for all bird species.
In these proposed regulations, we include identification standards
for birds that allow for flexibility in meeting the requirements,
including attaching information to primary enclosures identifying each
bird housed within, using leg and wing bands for identifying birds, and
employing microchips. We believe that these methods are the safest and
most acceptable means of identifying birds humanely.
Nesting and Breeding Activities
We asked commenters to provide information on how bird breeders
avoid interfering with nesting and breeding or other biological
activities of birds. We
[[Page 9887]]
also asked for comments to help APHIS ensure that housing, feeding, or
inspection requirements do not interfere with these activities.
Several bird breeders commenting on the notice raised concerns
about regulatory inspections disturbing nesting and breeding activity
at their facilities, potentially resulting in losses due to damage to
eggs, chicks, and mates. Some stated that licensees should have a say
in when inspections occur and asked that inspections not be conducted
during breeding cycles.
Many commenters raised biosecurity concerns about inspections and
inspectors transmitting pathogens into the facility. Another commenter
noted that operators frequently care for their birds in the early
morning hours or evening hours before or after work, so these
facilities would be inaccessible for the unannounced inspections called
for in the AWA regulations.
Conversely, some commenters emphasized the importance of
inspections for animal welfare, stating that procedures by trained
APHIS inspectors are no more intrusive than normal human-interactive
behaviors in many situations where birds are homed. Another commenter
stated that rather than disease posing a barrier to regulation, the
risk of which is overstated, it is another factor to consider when
developing safe inspection practices. Another commenter stated that
based on her experience, parrots are motivated to nest and breed
regardless of the presence of humans. Other commenters stated that
nesting and breeding concerns should not hamper the ability of
officials to conduct inspections and noted that remote camera
technology can allow inspectors to view birds without entering the
nesting area.
We acknowledge the concerns of many commenters about the impact
that inspections could have on the health and safety of their birds,
particularly during periods of breeding and nesting. We note that APHIS
inspectors would work with newly regulated persons to identify optimal
times for inspections so that disruptions are minimized while
maintaining the unannounced nature of inspections. As with inspections
of other types of animals, APHIS inspectors are required to observe
professionally accepted standards for minimizing the risk of
introducing disease into facilities.
Transportation
The transportation standards we propose for birds provide the same
consideration for humane care as is required in the current regulations
for other species of AWA-covered animals, and we acknowledge the point
made by many commenters that some birds have highly specialized
transportation needs. For example, while most birds require space to
make normal postural adjustments during transport, there are some birds
that may injure themselves if their movements are not restricted.
Therefore, the intention of the proposed transportation standards for
birds is to account for these animals' unique needs and provide them
with equivalent protection and care as other covered animals.
One commenter stated that despite many concerns about the welfare
of baby and unweaned birds, birds should not be subject to minimum age
requirements for shipping. The commenter noted that precocial species,
such as gallinaceous birds, have been shipped as ``day-old'' hatchlings
for many years as an accepted practice in the poultry industry. Another
commenter recommended that any person handling a primary enclosure
containing a bird be required to use care and avoid causing physical
harm or distress to the bird, while some commenters stated that all
temporary transportation and housing of birds in trade or enroute to
shows should be exempted as these constitute a temporary condition and
not a permanent living space.
Conversely, numerous commenters requested that we establish
regulations prohibiting the sale of unweaned and prematurely weaned
baby birds, noting that such birds risk succumbing to disease,
mishandling, and transport hazards.
We acknowledge that there could be legitimate reasons to transport
an unweaned bird, but also agree with the concerns cited above. We note
that under the standards we propose, carriers and intermediate handlers
would not be permitted to accept unweaned birds for transport unless
transport instructions are specified as a part of the program of
veterinary care.
A commenter representing the USFWS recommended not requiring AWA
licensing for transporters who are transporting birds under a valid
MBTA permit to and from the wild for compensation at or less than
recouping costs. The commenter noted that there are situations in which
volunteers transport wild migratory birds for minimal compensation for
the health and safety of these birds. The proposed regulations include
an exemption from AWA licensing for anyone transporting a migratory
bird covered under the MBTA from the wild to a facility for
rehabilitation and eventual release in the wild, or between
rehabilitation facilities. Any person transporting a migratory bird is
currently required to obtain authorization to do so from USFWS.
Proposed Regulations and Standards
The proposed regulations and standards in this document are
intended to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of birds not bred for use in research that are used, or
intended for use, for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or
exhibition purposes, or as a pet. Consistent with most of the comments
we received during the listening sessions, these proposed animal
welfare standards accommodate the species-specific needs of birds and
consider their significant differences with respect to their biological
and behavioral requirements. In every case, the goal of the proposed
standards for birds is to provide each individual bird with acceptable
conditions consistent with ensuring its good health and well-being and
meeting its physical and behavioral needs as required under the Act.
Definitions
In Sec. 1.1, we would revise the definitions of several terms used
throughout parts 2 and 3. Specifically, we would revise the definitions
of carrier, exhibitor, farm animal, intermediate handler, pet animal,
retail pet store, and weaned. We would also add new definitions of
bird, bred for use in research, and poultry to Sec. 1.1. The proposed
revisions are discussed below. In addition to these proposed revisions,
regulated parties with birds would be subject to all other applicable
definitions contained in Sec. 1.1 if this proposed rule is adopted as
a final rule.
Bird
We would define the term bird as any members of the class Aves,
excluding eggs. We consider a bird to no longer be an egg when the bird
is fully separated from the eggshell.
We considered regulating the welfare of live avian eggs during the
development of this proposed rule. However, we found that there was not
enough scientific data available for each species of bird to determine
the stages when human management can cause an animal welfare concern.
Bred for Use in Research
We propose to add a definition for the term bred for use in
research to clarify what animals are considered bred for use in
research under the AWA regulations. This term would cover animals that
are bred in captivity and
[[Page 9888]]
that are being used or are intended for use for research, teaching,
testing, or experimentation purposes.
The definition of animal in the AWA and the regulations excludes
birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for
use in research.\6\ Therefore, under this proposal, the following birds
not bred for use in research would be covered by the regulations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Birds are otherwise covered under the definition of animal
in the Act and the current regulations by the term ``warm-blooded
animal.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Birds that are obtained from their natural habitat and
used or intended for use for research, teaching, testing, or
experimentation purposes; and
<bullet> Birds that are being used or intended for use for
exhibition purposes or for use as pets.
Carrier
We would revise the definition of carrier to include an exemption
from AWA licensing for anyone transporting a migratory bird covered
under the MBTA from the wild to a facility for rehabilitation and
eventual release in the wild, or between rehabilitation facilities, and
who has authorization from USFWS for that purpose. As transport of such
migratory birds is regulated by the USFWS, any person transporting a
migratory bird is currently required to obtain authorization to do so
from that agency. We are proposing this exception because APHIS and
USFWS agree that the continued transport of MBTA-covered birds for
rehabilitation without additional regulation is beneficial for species
preservation and outweighs any potential risk to animal welfare. If
USFWS receives animal welfare-related complaints about transport of
such birds, USDA will work with that agency to address them.
Exhibitor
We would also revise the definition of exhibitor. Currently, an
exhibitor is defined as ``any person (public or private) exhibiting any
animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution
of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for
compensation, as determined by the Secretary. This term includes
carnivals, circuses, animal acts, zoos, and educational exhibits,
exhibiting such animals whether operated for profit or not. This term
excludes retail pet stores, horse and dog races, an owner of a common,
domesticated household pet who derives less than a substantial portion
of income from a nonprimary source (as determined by the Secretary) for
exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the
pet owner, organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in
State and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, field trials,
coursing events, purebred dog and cat shows, and any other fairs or
exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences, as may
be determined by the Secretary.''
Like horse and dog races and purebred dog and cat shows, we
consider pigeon races and bird fancier shows to be exhibitions
traditionally intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences.
Therefore, we would amend the definition of exhibitor by adding pigeon
races and bird fancier shows to the list of exhibitions that are
excluded from coverage. In addition, for clarity, we would add free-
flighted bird shows as an example of a type of animal act that is
included under the definition of exhibitor.
Farm Animal; Poultry
Currently, Sec. 1.1 defines a farm animal as ``any domestic
species of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, llamas, or horses, which are
normally and have historically, been kept and raised on farms in the
United States, and used or intended for use as food or fiber, or for
improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production
efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. This term
also includes animals such as rabbits, mink, and chinchilla, when they
are used solely for purposes of meat or fur, and animals such as horses
and llamas when used solely as work and pack animals.'' Poultry is not
currently defined in the AWA regulations.
We are proposing to make several changes to the definition of farm
animal to ensure appropriate coverage for birds. Like cattle, sheep,
and other farm animals, there are domestic species of poultry that have
historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States and
used for food or fiber or for improving animal nutrition, breeding,
management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of
food or fiber. Therefore, we are proposing to amend this term to
include such poultry. This proposed amendment would also make the
definition of farm animal consistent with the definition of animal,
which lists poultry as a kind of farm animal that is exempt from
coverage when used or intended for use as food or fiber, for improving
animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or
for improving the quality of food or fiber.
We are also proposing to revise farm animal to include animals when
used solely for their feathers or skins. The proposed addition of
feathers to the list accounts for morphological differences between
birds and other animals and is the avian equivalent to the current
inclusion of animals when used solely for the purposes of fur. The
proposed addition of skins to the list reflects the common practice of
using ostrich and other skins of birds for leathers. Further, we would
add ratites (e.g., ostrich, rhea, or emu) to the illustrative list of
animals that are included in this term when used solely for purposes of
meat, fur, feathers, or skins.
In addition to these changes to the definition of farm animal, we
would also add a separate definition of poultry to the AWA regulations
to clarify what birds are considered poultry. This term would be
defined as any species of chickens, turkeys, swans, partridges, guinea
fowl, and pea fowl; ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves; grouse,
pheasants, and quail.
Intermediate Handler
We would amend the definition of intermediate handler to include an
exemption from AWA licensing for anyone transporting a migratory bird
from the wild to a facility for rehabilitation and eventual release in
the wild, or between rehabilitation facilities, with USFWS
authorization. Any person transporting a migratory bird covered under
the MBTA is currently required to obtain authorization from USFWS.
Pet Animal
Under the current regulations, pet animal is defined as ``any
animal that has commonly been kept as a pet in family households in the
United States, such as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters.
This term excludes exotic animals and wild animals.'' We are proposing
to include birds under the definition of pet animal and amend the
illustrative list of animals contained in the definition by adding
examples of pet birds. Such birds would include but not be limited to
parrots, canaries, cockatiels, lovebirds, and budgerigar parakeets.
Although there are too many bird species that exist in the United
States and are kept as pets to list under the definition, we propose to
list these particular birds because they constitute the majority of
birds bought and sold as pets in the United States and are thus a good
illustrative example of what constitutes a pet bird.
[[Page 9889]]
Retail Pet Store
Currently, a retail pet store is defined as ``a place of business
or residence at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for
sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally observe
the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal
after purchase, and where only the following animals are sold or
offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets: Dogs, cats, rabbits,
guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchillas,
domesticated ferrets, domesticated farm-type animals, birds, and
coldblooded species.'' The current definition goes on to exclude
establishments or persons conducting certain activities, meaning that
these establishments or persons do not meet the retail pet store
definition. These exclusions are as follows:
<bullet> Establishments or persons who deal in dogs used for
hunting, security, or breeding purposes;
<bullet> Establishments or persons exhibiting, selling, or offering
to exhibit or sell any wild or exotic or other nonpet species of
warmblooded animals (except birds), such as skunks, raccoons, nonhuman
primates, squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes, etc.;
<bullet> Any establishment or person selling warmblooded animals
(except birds, and laboratory rats and mice) for research or exhibition
purposes;
<bullet> Any establishment wholesaling any animals (except birds,
rats, and mice); and
<bullet> Any establishment exhibiting pet animals in a room that is
separate from or adjacent to the retail pet store, or in an outside
area, or anywhere off the retail pet store premises.
We are proposing to revise the definition of retail pet store by
removing the parenthetical exceptions for birds from the lists of
exclusions above. Those exclusions exist as a result of the historical
exclusion of all birds from the definition of animal in Sec. 1.1 of
the regulations and are inconsistent with the current definition of
animal.
Weaned
Currently, Sec. 1.1 defines weaned to mean that ``an animal has
become accustomed to take solid food and has so done, without nursing,
for a period of at least 5 days.'' We are proposing to amend this
definition to make it applicable to birds. Specifically, we propose to
add that a bird is weaned if it has become accustomed to take food and
has so done, without supplemental feeding from a parent or human
caretaker, for at least 5 consecutive days. Signs that a bird or other
animal has become accustomed to take food include the animal's ability
to maintain a constant body weight during weaning.
Regulations in 9 CFR Part 2 Pertaining to Newly Regulated Persons Under
This Proposal
In addition to the amendments we propose, newly regulated persons
under this proposal would be subject to all other applicable AWA
regulations in effect for licensing, registration, research, and
inspections under 9 CFR part 2. These regulations, addressed below, are
intended as an overview of how newly regulated persons maintaining
birds as dealers or exhibitors may be affected.
Under Subpart A--Licensing, persons who plan to maintain and use
animals covered under the AWA regulations and who are not otherwise
exempt from licensing are required to apply to APHIS for a license,
which is valid for 3 years, in accordance with Sec. 2.1, and agree to
a prelicensing inspection demonstrating that his or her location(s) and
any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other locations used
or intended for use in the business comply with the Act and the
regulations and standards.
We are uncertain regarding the number of dealers and exhibitors who
will now be subject to this licensing requirement, but believe,
however, that under the regulations in part 2, many small bird dealers
and exhibitors would be exempted from licensing. The retail pet store
exemption exempts persons or businesses defined in Sec. 1.1 as a
retail pet store, which means a place of business or residence at which
the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically
present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to
purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase. Under
the de minimis exemptions in Sec. 2.1(a)(3), the income threshold
exemption in that paragraph applies to ``any person who sells or
negotiates the sale or purchase of any animal except wild or exotic
animals, dogs, or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income
from the sale of such animals during any calendar year and is not
otherwise required to obtain a license.'' A licensing exemption is also
provided for dealers who maintain four or fewer breeding females of pet
animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/or domesticated farm type
animals, and offer only their offspring for sale. Also, in Sec.
2.1(a)(3), individuals who buy, sell, transport, or negotiate the sale,
purchase, or transportation of an animal solely for food or fiber are
exempt from licensing, as are exhibitors covered under the AWA who
maintain eight or fewer pet animals, small exotic or wild animals, and/
or domesticated farm type animals for exhibition.
Under Subpart B--Registration, carriers and intermediate handlers
newly regulated under this proposal would not require a license to
transport birds, but would be required to register by completing and
filing a form provided by APHIS. Registrations, unlike licenses, do not
have an expiration date.
Under Subpart C--Research facilities, a newly regulated research
facility under this proposal would need to register by completing and
filing a form available from APHIS. The chief executive officer of the
newly registered research facility would be required to appoint an
IACUC consisting of qualified persons to assess the research facility's
animal program, facilities, and procedures. Each research facility
would also need to have an attending veterinarian and maintain a
program of veterinary care. Lastly, registered research facilities
would be required to maintain records of IACUC meetings, activities
involving animals, and animals purchased or acquired by the facility.
In addition, newly licensed dealers and exhibitors under part 2,
subpart D, Sec. 2.40, also would be required to have an attending
veterinarian and a program of veterinary care. Subpart E requires that
dealers and exhibitors of all animals, except dogs and cats, delivered
for transportation, transported, purchased, sold, or otherwise acquired
or disposed of by any dealer or exhibitor would have to be identified
by the dealer or exhibitor at the time of delivery for transportation,
purchase, sale, acquisition or disposal, as provided in the subpart.
Primary enclosures would require a means for identifying each of the
animals within.
Subpart F prohibits any person from buying, selling, exhibiting,
using for research, transporting, or offering for transportation, any
stolen animal.
Subpart G would require dealers and exhibitors newly regulated
under this proposal to make, keep, and maintain records or forms which
fully and correctly disclose certain information as indicated in the
subpart, concerning animals purchased or otherwise acquired, owned,
held, leased, or otherwise in their possession or under their control,
or which are transported, sold, euthanized, or otherwise disposed of by
that dealer or exhibitor. Operators of an auction sale or broker would
need to make, keep, and maintain records or forms which disclose the
information indicated in the subpart concerning each bird consigned for
auction or sold, whether or not a fee or commission is
[[Page 9890]]
charged. Carriers and intermediate handlers newly registered under this
proposal would need to keep records concerning C.O.D. shipments of live
birds.
Subpart I includes miscellaneous requirements for dealers,
exhibitors, operators of auction sales, intermediate handlers, and
carriers. Newly regulated persons under this proposal would agree to
provide any information concerning the business which APHIS may request
in connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, the
regulations, and the standards. Also, each dealer, exhibitor,
intermediate handler, and carrier would be required to provide APHIS
officials with access to and inspection of property and records during
business hours. Any regulated person who intends to exhibit an animal
at any location other than the person's approved site (including, but
not limited to, circuses, traveling educational exhibits, animal acts,
and petting zoos), except for travel that does not extend overnight, is
required to submit a written itinerary to APHIS. The regulations in
subpart I also include provisions for missing animals, situations in
which captive animals are determined to be suffering, and demonstration
of adequate experience and knowledge of the species maintained.
Lastly, under current part 2, subpart I, newly regulated dealers,
exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers under this proposal
would be required to develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan
to provide for the humane handling, treatment, transportation, housing,
and care of their animals in the event of an emergency or disaster (one
which could reasonably be anticipated and expected to be detrimental to
the good health and well-being of the animals in their possession).
Proposed Changes to 9 CFR Part 2
The proposed amendments to the regulations are discussed below by
section. In addition to these proposed amendments, newly regulated
persons under this proposal would be subject to all other applicable
AWA regulations for licensing, registration, research and inspections
as summarized above.
Requirements and Application--Sec. 2.1
As noted previously, Sec. 2.1 of the regulations includes
requirements for licensing, as well as exemptions from licensing. One
such exception in Sec. 2.1(a)(3)(vi) exempts ``any person who buys,
sells, transports, or negotiates the sale, purchase, or transportation
of any animals used only for the purposes of food or fiber (including
fur).'' To accommodate birds under this exemption, we would add
``feathers'' to the list of purposes for which birds are used.
Paragraph (b)(1) states that licenses are issued to specific
persons, and are issued for specific activities, types and numbers of
animals, and approved sites. As each license specifies the numbers and
types of animals that a licensee can maintain, under paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) a licensee is required to obtain a new license before
acquiring or using any covered animal beyond those types or numbers of
animals specifically authorized under the existing license.
We are aware that a number of currently licensed facilities, in
addition to maintaining mammals of various types, are also maintaining
birds that might be covered under the proposed changes to the
regulations. These birds are not currently listed on the license.
However, in order to minimize redundant administrative burden on these
facilities, we would not require that they apply for a new license only
for the purpose of meeting the effective date of these proposed
regulations, if promulgated. Therefore, we propose to add a statement
to Sec. 2.1(b)(2)(ii) explaining that a current licensee with birds is
not required to apply for a new license until the recommended 90 days
prior to the scheduled expiration date of that license (APHIS
encourages such persons to apply for a new license at least 90 days
before expiration of the current one). Licenses are valid for 3 years.
We would also add to paragraph (b)(2)(ii) a reference to proposed
subpart G in part 3, which lists standards for birds, and an effective
date.
APHIS intends to provide guidance to both new and current licensees
through documents, guides, and training to help them achieve compliance
with the new regulations for birds. We invite potential licensees and
other interested persons to comment on the types of training and
guidance they need and the modes by which it might be best provided.
Birds Covered Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA implements a series of treaties between the United States
and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia intended to protect and sustain
populations of migratory birds. Under regulations developed and
enforced by USFWS, the MBTA prohibits the take (including killing,
capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird
species without prior authorization.\7\ With some exceptions,\8\ any
activity involving the use, possession, or transport of a migratory
bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such birds, requires a USFWS
permit specific to the activity. Types of migratory bird permits and
their provisions, listed in 50 CFR part 21, subpart C, include but are
not limited to those intended for import or export, scientific
collecting, falconry, raptor propagation, and rehabilitation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A list of migratory birds protected under the MBTA can be
found at <a href="https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-10/subpart-B/section-10.13">https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-10/subpart-B/section-10.13</a>.
\8\ See 50 CFR 21.12, ``General exceptions to permit
requirements.'' Exceptions address handling and transport of
migratory birds by certain persons and institutions for the purpose
of ensuring their health and safety.
\9\ Regulations and permits specific to bald and golden eagles
are located in 50 CFR part 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the 2002 amendments to the AWA by Congress
subjected birds to regulation under the AWA, which does not distinguish
migratory birds from other birds and therefore does not exclude them
from regulation under its authority. Although migratory birds are
currently covered under the MBTA and its regulations, the primary
purpose of the MBTA is to sustain native populations of such birds
rather than to establish specific standards of care and humane
treatment for birds in captivity. For this reason, we acknowledge that
a small number of persons maintaining captive migratory birds for some
activities under USFWS regulation would also fall under AWA coverage
and potentially be subject to APHIS regulation. In particular, some
persons currently authorized under permit by USFWS to exhibit or breed
migratory birds may be required to follow AWA regulations and obtain a
license from APHIS to ensure that such birds are receiving humane care
and treatment.
As noted above, we propose to revise the definitions of carrier and
intermediate handler in Sec. 1.1 to include an exemption from AWA
registration for anyone transporting a migratory bird covered under the
MBTA from the wild to a facility for rehabilitation and eventual
release in the wild, or between rehabilitation facilities.
APHIS continues to work closely with USFWS to determine situations
where regulatory overlap may occur, and both agencies are coordinating
efforts in order to minimize dual regulation of persons possessing and
using migratory birds for breeding, exhibition, education, and
research. To help us reduce regulatory burden on such persons, we
invite comments that address specific activities and concerns
[[Page 9891]]
involving migratory birds potentially covered under both APHIS and
USFWS regulations.
Registration Requirements and Procedures--Sec. 2.25
Section 2.25 provides in part that each carrier and intermediate
handler is required to register with the Secretary by completing a form
furnished, upon request, by the Deputy Administrator. This requirement
typically applies to persons who transport AWA-covered animals. Persons
already registered to transport other animals would not be required to
update their registration to transport birds.
We note that some persons transport wild migratory birds between
rehabilitation facilities and the wild as part of conservation
projects. As the transport of migratory birds covered under the MBTA
requires authorization by USFWS under regulations in 50 CFR parts 21
and 22, we would not require that such transporters register with
APHIS. Accordingly, we would revise the definitions of carrier and
intermediate handler to exempt such persons from AWA licensing.
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)--Sec. 2.31(d)
Under Sec. 2.31 of the regulations, each registered research
facility must establish an IACUC to assess its animal program,
facilities, and procedures. The IACUC must have at least three members,
one of whom must be a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, with training or
experience in laboratory animal science and medicine, who has direct or
delegated program responsibility for activities involving animals at
the research facility. Another member must not be affiliated with the
facility at all, and is intended to provide representation for general
community interests. In order to approve proposed activities or
proposed significant changes in ongoing activities, paragraph (d) of
Sec. 2.31 requires that the IACUC conduct a review of those components
of the activities related to the care and use of animals and determine
that the proposed activities are in accordance with the regulations,
unless acceptable justification for a departure is presented in
writing.\10\ The IACUC is also required to determine that the proposed
activities or significant changes in ongoing activities meet a number
of requirements, including ones related to activities that involve
surgery. We are proposing no additional requirements for IACUC
membership, but research facilities that use birds not bred for use in
research could choose to enlist additional IACUC members with avian
expertise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ APHIS has issued guidance exempting field studies, defined
by APHIS as studies conducted on free-living wild animals in their
natural habitat, from this requirement. However, this term excludes
any study that involves an invasive procedure, harms, or materially
alters the behavior of an animal under study. For more detail, see
the APHIS Tech Note, ``Research Involving Free-living Wild Animals
in Their Natural Habitat,'' at <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/tech-note-free-living-wild-animals.pdf">https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/tech-note-free-living-wild-animals.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current Sec. 2.31(d)(1)(ix), activities that involve surgery
must include appropriate provision for pre-operative and post-operative
care of the animals in accordance with established veterinary medical
and nursing practices, which means that survival surgery must be
performed using aseptic procedures, including surgical gloves, masks,
and sterile instruments. Major operative procedures on non-rodents must
be conducted only in facilities intended for that purpose and must be
operated and maintained under aseptic conditions. Non-major operative
procedures and all surgery on rodents do not require a dedicated
facility but also must be performed using aseptic procedures. Operative
procedures conducted at field sites need not be performed in dedicated
facilities but must be performed using aseptic procedures.
We would apply the same requirements for operative procedures for
birds as we do for rodents in Sec. 2.31(d)(ix). Our determination for
this decision is twofold. First, we are aligning our requirements with
U.S. Public Health Service policy for the humane care and use of
laboratory animals, which does not require a separate, dedicated
surgical area for rodents, but does require a surgical area used solely
for survival surgeries involving higher vertebrate species.\11\ Second,
we have considered the operative conditions and practices for rodents
and concluded that they would be humane and consistent with the AWA if
applied to birds. As we noted above, the surgical standards currently
listed in Sec. 2.31(d)(1)(ix) include appropriate provisions for
aseptic surgery and pre-operative and post-operative care of the
animals in accordance with established veterinary medical and nursing
practices, which apply regardless of whether or not the surgery is
performed in a dedicated facility used wholly for that purpose.
Moreover, under current Sec. 2.31(d)(1)(ix), medical care for all AWA-
covered animals at a registered research facility is required to be
available and provided as necessary by a qualified veterinarian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th
Edition, National Research Council: <a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf">https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf</a>. Page 144
of the Guide states that, ``for most survival surgery performed on
rodents and other small species such as aquatics and birds, an
animal procedure laboratory is recommended; the space should be
dedicated to surgery and related activities when used for this
purpose, and managed to minimize contamination from other activities
conducted in the room at other times.'' [Our emphasis.] In other
words, a surgical area for rodents and birds is not exclusively
intended for that purpose as it is for higher vertebrate species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and Method of Identification--Sec. 2.50
We are proposing to amend Sec. 2.50 of the regulations, which
addresses methods of identifying animals. Currently, paragraph (e)(1)
requires dealers and exhibitors to identify all animals, except for
dogs and cats, delivered for transportation, transported, purchased,
sold, or otherwise acquired or disposed of, at the time of delivery for
transportation, purchase, sale, acquisition, or disposal. Paragraph
(e)(2) requires such animals, when confined to a primary enclosure, to
be identified using one of three methods: (1) A label attached to the
primary enclosure that bears a description of the animals in the
primary enclosure; (2) marking the primary enclosure with a painted or
stenciled number which shall be recorded in the records of the dealer
or exhibitor together with a description of the animals; or (3) a tag
or tattoo applied to each animal in the primary enclosure that
individually identifies each animal by description or number. When such
an animal is not confined to a primary enclosure, paragraph (e)(3)
provides that the animal must be identified on a record that must be
kept and maintained by a dealer or exhibitor as part of his or her
records.
Labels attached to primary enclosures, leg and wing bands, and
transponders (also referred to as microchips) are preferred methods of
identification for birds. These methods are commonly and safely used to
identify birds in all segments of the avian industry that we would
regulate. The ability to identify animals is a part of basic animal
husbandry and allows for APHIS to track animals to monitor movement.
Therefore, we propose to require dealers and exhibitors to identify
their birds that are confined to a primary enclosure using one of the
following: (1) A label attached to the primary enclosure that bears a
description of the birds in the primary enclosure, including the number
and species of birds and any distinctive physical features or
identifying marks of the birds; (2) a leg or wing band applied to each
bird in the primary enclosure by the dealer or
[[Page 9892]]
exhibitor that individually identifies each bird by description or
number; or (3) a transponder (microchip) placed in a standard
anatomical location for the species in accordance with currently
accepted professional standards, provided that the facility has a
compatible transponder reader that is capable of reading the
transponder and that the reader is readily available for use by an
APHIS official and/or facility employee accompanying the APHIS
official. We would add these proposed requirements as a new paragraph
(e)(2) in Sec. 2.50 and redesignate current paragraphs (e)(2) and (3)
as paragraphs (e)(3) and (4), respectively, to accommodate that new
paragraph. Birds that are not confined to a primary enclosure would be
subject to the identification requirements contained in redesignated
paragraph (e)(4) (current paragraph (e)(3)). Under that paragraph, such
birds would have to be identified on a record, as required by Sec.
2.75 of the regulations, which would have to accompany the bird at the
time it is delivered for transportation, transported, purchased, or
sold, and would have to be kept and maintained by the dealer or
exhibitor as part of his or her records.
Records: Dealers and Exhibitors--Sec. 2.75
Currently, Sec. 2.75(b)(1) of the regulations requires that
dealers (other than operators of auction sales and brokers to whom
animals are consigned) and exhibitors make, keep, and maintain records
or forms which fully and correctly disclose certain identification and
disposition information concerning animals other than dogs and cats
that are purchased or otherwise acquired, owned, held, leased, or
otherwise in their possession or under their control, or that they
transport, sell, euthanize, or otherwise dispose of. Among other
things, the records must include any offspring born of any animal while
in the dealer's or exhibitor's possession or under his or her control.
We propose to apply these recordkeeping requirements to dealers and
exhibitors of birds and would apply to all birds covered under the AWA.
While we acknowledge that some stakeholders commented that maintaining
records of individual birds in large flocks is infeasible, we consider
an accounting of each covered animal important for the purposes of
ensuring adequate animal welfare for every animal. For example, among
other purposes, it is necessary in order to account for additions of
covered animals to the inventory at the facility, as well as
mortalities. The only change that would be necessary in Sec.
2.75(b)(1) to reflect its applicability to dealers and exhibitors of
birds would be to add the words ``or hatched'' after the word ``born''
in the previously cited provision regarding records for offspring born
to animals while they are under a dealer's or exhibitor's possession or
control.
Records: Operators of Auction Sales and Brokers--Sec. 2.76
Section 2.76 requires that operators of auction sales and brokers
maintain records for any animal consigned for auction or sold, whether
or not a fee or commission is charged. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 2.76
provides that those records must include such information as the name
and address of the buyer or consignee who received the animal, the USDA
license or registration number (if applicable) of the person selling,
buying, or receiving the animals, the date of consignment, the band,
microchip, or other durable individualized identification method
assigned to the animal under Sec. 2.50 or Sec. 2.54, and a
description of each animal. Currently, Sec. 2.76(a)(7) requires a
description of each animal that includes the species and breed or type
of animal, the sex of the animal, the date of birth or approximate age,
and the color and any distinctive markings.
Because the sex of some birds may not be readily determinable, we
are proposing to amend paragraph (a)(7) to require operators of auction
sales and brokers to record the sex of a bird only if it is readily
determinable. To reflect the fact that birds lay eggs, rather than give
birth to live young, we would also add the words ``or hatch date''
after the words ``date of birth'' in paragraph (a)(7)(iii).
The regulations currently allow operators of auction sales and
brokers to provide an approximate age in lieu of an animal's date of
birth in those instances where the exact date of birth of the animal is
unknown. We recognize that it is sometimes difficult to even estimate
the approximate age of certain species of birds, so we also would allow
the approximate developmental stage of an animal to be provided if the
date of birth or hatch date is unknown. For example, an operator of an
auction sale or broker who does not know the hatch date or approximate
age of a bird may disclose that the bird is a chick, juvenile, or adult
on the records or forms maintained for that bird in accordance with
Sec. 2.76 of the regulations.
Proposed Standards in 9 CFR Part 3
As we noted above, the Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture
to promulgate standards governing the humane handling, care, treatment,
and transportation of covered animals by dealers, research facilities,
exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate
handlers. For dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors of animals
covered by the Act, such standards must include minimum requirements
for handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation,
shelter from extreme weather and temperatures, adequate veterinary
care, and separation by species where necessary.
The standards relating to the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of animals currently covered by the AWA are contained in
9 CFR part 3, subparts A though F. Subparts A through E contain
specific standards for dogs and cats, guinea pigs and hamsters,
rabbits, nonhuman primates, and marine mammals respectively, while
subpart F sets forth general standards for warmblooded animals not
otherwise specified in that part. In this document, we are proposing to
add a new subpart G to contain standards for birds.
The proposed standards for birds are divided into three broad
areas: Facilities and operating standards; animal health and husbandry
standards; and transportation standards. The standards in these areas
address requirements under the Act. In the listening sessions held on
this rulemaking, many commenters asked that we consider standards for
birds that are flexible enough to ensure their species-specific needs
are met. Many commenters also stated that, given the vast number of
bird species, prescriptive standards would generally be impracticable
and burdensome to the aviculture community. We agree with commenters on
these points and have developed the proposed standards accordingly. As
a whole, these standards provide APHIS the means to effectively measure
compliance and ensure animal welfare, while also affording breeders,
dealers, exhibitors, and transporters flexibility to implement the
standards using the expertise and knowledge they have of their
particular birds. On this point, we invite comments on ways that APHIS
might assist regulated entities with implementation of these standards,
whether through documents, guides, training, or other means. The
standards for proposed Subpart G--Specifications for the Humane
Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds are discussed
below by topic.
[[Page 9893]]
Facilities and Operating Standards
Facilities, General
Facilities, General: Structure; Construction--Proposed Sec. 3.150(a)
Housing facilities must be safe and secure not only for birds but
also for the persons attending to them and to the general public. As we
noted above, the current regulations in part 3 for animals include
requirements for housing that consider both animal and human safety.
Therefore, we are proposing in Sec. 3.150(a) to require that housing
facilities for birds be designed and constructed so that they are
structurally and safely sound for the species of bird housed in them.
We would also require that they be kept in good repair, protect the
birds from injury, and restrict the entry of other animals. The
facilities would have to employ security measures that contain all the
birds securely. Such measures may include safety doors, entry/exit
doors to the primary enclosure that are double-doored, or other
equivalent systems designed to prevent escape of the birds. For birds
that are flight-restricted or cannot fly and are allowed to roam free
within the housing facility or a portion thereof, we would require that
the birds have access to safety pens, enclosures, or other areas that
offer the birds protection during overnight periods and at times when
their activities are not observed by staff.
Facilities, General: Condition and Site--Proposed Sec. 3.150(b)
Housing facilities and areas used for storing animal food or
bedding would have to be adequately free of any accumulation of trash,
waste material, other discarded materials, junk, weeds, and brush. We
would also require that such areas be kept neat and free of clutter,
including equipment, furniture, and stored material, except for
materials actually used and necessary for cleaning the area, and
fixtures or equipment necessary for proper husbandry practices and
research needs.
Facilities, General: Surfaces--Proposed Sec. 3.150(c)
The surfaces of housing facilities would have to be constructed in
a manner and made of materials that allow them to be readily cleaned
and/or sanitized, or removed and replaced when worn or soiled. Interior
surfaces and surfaces that come in contact with birds would also have
to be nontoxic to the bird, free of rust or damage that affects the
structural integrity of the surface or prevents cleaning, and free of
jagged edges or sharp points that could injure the birds. This proposed
standard would allow for thorough cleaning of the primary enclosure to
prevent bacterial, excrement, or other organic buildup that could be a
health hazard to the birds. It would also ensure that the birds are
contained securely and that the surfaces that come in contact with the
birds are not harmful to them.
Facilities, General: Water and Electric Power--Proposed Sec. 3.150(d)
A reliable source of water and power must be available. Therefore,
we are proposing that the facility must have reliable electric power
adequate for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting, and for
carrying out other husbandry requirements in accordance with the
proposed standards for birds. We also propose that the facility provide
adequate potable water for the birds' drinking needs and adequate water
for cleaning and carrying out other husbandry requirements.
Facilities, General: Storage--Proposed Sec. 3.150(e)
Supplies of food, including food supplements, bedding, and
substrate, would have to be stored in a manner that protects the
supplies from spoilage, contamination, and vermin infestation. We would
require that the supplies be stored off the floor and away from the
walls, to allow cleaning underneath and around the supplies. All food
would have to be stored at appropriate temperatures and in a manner
that prevents contamination and deterioration of its nutritive value,
and food would not be allowed to be used beyond its shelf-life date or
expiration date listed on the label. All open supplies of food and
bedding would have to be kept in waterproof containers with tightly
fitting lids to prevent deterioration and contamination, except for
live, frozen, or refrigerated food. We would also require that live
food be maintained in a manner to ensure wholesomeness. We would also
provide that substances such as cleaning supplies and disinfectants
that are harmful to birds but required for normal husbandry practices
may not be stored in food storage and preparation areas but may be
stored in cabinets in the animal areas, provided that they are stored
in properly labeled containers that are adequately secured to prevent
potential harm to the birds. Finally, we would prohibit animal waste
and dead animals and animal parts not intended for food from being kept
in food storage or food preparation areas, food freezers, food
refrigerators, and animal areas.
Facilities, General: Waste Disposal--Proposed Sec. 3.150(f)
Proper waste disposal is essential in maintaining the cleanliness
and sanitary condition of facilities housing birds and directly affects
the health and well-being of such animals. Therefore, we are proposing
to require that housing facility operators provide for regular and
frequent collection, removal, and disposal of animal and food wastes,
substrate, dead animals, debris, garbage, water, and any other fluids
and wastes in a manner that minimizes contamination and disease. We
would require that trash containers in housing facilities and in food
storage and food preparation areas be leakproof and have tightly fitted
lids.
Facilities, General: Drainage--Proposed Sec. 3.150(g)
Proper drainage must be provided in order to maintain cleanliness
and sanitary conditions. Therefore, we are proposing the following
standards:
<bullet> Housing facilities would have to be equipped with disposal
and drainage systems that are constructed and operated so that animal
wastes and water, except for water located in pools or other aquatic
areas (e.g., ponds, waterfalls, fountains, and other water features),
are rapidly eliminated and the animals have the option of remaining
dry. We would require that any pool or other aquatic area be maintained
in accordance with the regulations in proposed Sec. 3.157, which are
discussed below.
<bullet> Disposal and drainage systems would have to minimize
vermin and pest infestation, insects, odors, and disease hazards.
<bullet> All drains would have to be properly constructed,
installed, and maintained so that they effectively drain water. If
closed drainage systems are used, they would have to be equipped with
traps and prevent the backflow of gases and the backup of sewage. If
the facility uses sump ponds, settlement ponds, or other similar
systems for drainage and animal waste disposal, the system would have
to be located a sufficient distance from the bird area of the housing
facility to prevent odors, diseases, insects, pests, and vermin
infestation in the bird area.
<bullet> If drip or constant flow watering devices are used to
provide water to the animals, excess water would have to be rapidly
drained out of the animal areas by gutters or pipes so that the animals
have the option of remaining dry.
[[Page 9894]]
Facilities, General: Toilets, Washrooms, and Sinks--Proposed Sec.
3.150(h)
Toilets and washing facilities, such as washrooms, basins, sinks,
or showers, would have to be provided for and be readily accessible to
animal caretakers.
Facilities, Indoor
Facilities, Indoor: Temperature and Humidity--Proposed Sec. 3.151(a)
Maintaining appropriate air temperature and humidity levels and, if
present, pool or other aquatic area (e.g., ponds, waterfalls,
fountains, and other water features) temperature is vital to the health
and well-being of birds. Therefore, we would require that the air
temperature and humidity levels and, if present, pool or other aquatic
area temperatures in indoor facilities be sufficiently regulated and
appropriate to the bird species to protect them against detrimental
temperature and humidity levels, to provide for their health and well-
being, and to prevent discomfort or distress, in accordance with
current professionally accepted standards. Prescribed temperature and
humidity levels would be part of the written program of veterinary care
or part of the full-time veterinarian's records.
Facilities, Indoor: Ventilation--Proposed Sec. 3.151(b)
Ventilation is important to ensure that birds are provided adequate
fresh air for their respiratory needs in both quantity and quality.
Therefore, we would require that indoor housing facilities be
sufficiently ventilated at all times when birds are present to provide
for their health, to prevent their discomfort or distress,
accumulations of moisture condensation, odors, and levels of ammonia,
chlorine, and other noxious gases. We would also require that the
ventilation system minimize any drafts.
Facilities, Indoor: Lighting--Proposed Sec. 3.151(c)
Indoor housing facilities would need to have lighting, by natural
or artificial means, or both, of appropriate quality, distribution, and
duration for the bird species. We would require that such lighting be
sufficient to permit routine inspection and cleaning and be designed to
protect the birds from excessive illumination that may cause discomfort
or distress.
Facilities, Indoor: Indoor Pool and Other Aquatic Areas--Proposed Sec.
3.151(d)
Indoor pools or other aquatic areas (e.g., ponds, waterfalls,
fountains, and other water features) would have to have sufficient
vertical air space above the pool or other aquatic area to allow for
behaviors typical to the species of bird under consideration. Such
behaviors may include, but are not limited to, diving and swimming.
Facilities, Outdoor
Facilities, Outdoor: Acclimation--Proposed Sec. 3.152(a)
Birds come from a great variety of climatic conditions. There is
also a wide range of climatic conditions within the United States.
Outdoor housing facilities are completely dependent on the local
environmental conditions. Therefore, we are proposing that birds may
not be housed in outdoor facilities unless the air humidity and
temperature ranges they may encounter do not adversely affect their
health and comfort. This provision would also apply to the temperature
of pools and other aquatic areas (ponds, waterfalls, fountains, and
other water features). Further, we would provide that birds may not be
introduced to an outdoor housing facility until they are acclimated to
the ambient temperature and humidity and, if applicable, pool or other
aquatic area temperature range which they will encounter therein.
Facilities, Outdoor: Shelter From Inclement Weather--Proposed Sec.
3.152(b)
Outdoor housing facilities would have to provide adequate shelter,
appropriate to the species and physical condition of the birds, for the
local climatic conditions, in order to protect the birds from any
adverse weather conditions. We would require that such shelters be
adequately ventilated in hot weather and have one or more separate
areas of shade or other effective protection that is large enough to
contain all the birds at one time and prevent their discomfort from
direct sunlight, precipitation, or wind. The shelter would have to be
constructed to provide sufficient space to comfortably hold all of the
birds at the same time without adverse intraspecific aggression or
grouping of incompatible birds. For birds that form dominance
hierarchies and that are maintained in social groupings, we would make
it explicit that such shelter(s) would have to be constructed so as to
provide sufficient space to comfortably hold all the birds at the same
time, including birds that are low in the hierarchy.
Primary Enclosures
Primary Enclosures: General Requirements--Proposed Sec. 3.153(a)
Primary enclosures would have to be designed and constructed of
suitable materials so that they are structurally sound. We would also
require that the primary enclosures be kept in good repair and be
constructed and maintained so that they:
<bullet> Have no sharp points or edges that could injure the birds;
<bullet> Protect the birds from injury;
<bullet> Contain the birds securely;
<bullet> Restrict other animals from entering the enclosure;
<bullet> Ensure that birds have the option to remain dry and clean;
<bullet> Provide shelter and protection for each bird from climatic
and environmental conditions that may be detrimental to its health and
well-being;
<bullet> Provide sufficient shade to comfortably shelter all birds
housed in the primary enclosure at one time, including low ranking
birds that are maintained in social groupings that form dominance
hierarchies;
<bullet> Provide all the birds with easy and convenient access to
clean food and potable water;
<bullet> Ensure that all surfaces in contact with the birds may be
readily cleaned and/or sanitized in accordance with proposed Sec.
3.158 of the regulations, or be replaced when worn or soiled; and
<bullet> Have floors that are constructed in a manner that protects
the birds' feet and legs from injury. If flooring material is
suspended, it would have to be sufficiently taut to prevent sagging
under the birds' weight. If substrate is used in the primary enclosure,
the substrate would have to be clean and made of a suitably absorbent
material that is safe and nontoxic to the birds.
In addition, we would require that furniture-type objects, such as
perches and other objects that enrich a bird's environment, be species-
appropriate and designed, constructed, and maintained so as to prevent
harm to the birds. If the enclosure houses birds that rest by perching,
there would have to be perches available that are appropriate to the
age and species of birds housed therein and a sufficient number of
perches of appropriate size, shape, strength, texture, and placement to
comfortably hold all the birds in the primary enclosure at the same
time, including birds that are ranked low in a dominance hierarchy.
Finally, we would require primary enclosures that are adjacent to
one another or that share a common side with another enclosure to be
suitably screened from each other or kept at a sufficient distance
apart in order to prevent injury of the occupants due to predation,
territorial disputes, or aggression.
[[Page 9895]]
Primary Enclosures: Space Requirements--Proposed Sec. 3.153(b)
Space requirements for the wide variety of birds that are subject
to the Act are quite variable. Therefore, the proposed space
requirements contained in this proposal are performance-based standards
intended to provide adequate space to ensure the health and well-being
of the birds. The primary enclosures would have to be constructed and
maintained to allow each bird to make normal postural and social
adjustments, such as dust-bathing and foraging, with adequate freedom
of movement and freedom to escape from aggression by other animals in
the enclosure according to the program of veterinary care developed,
documented in writing, and signed by the attending veterinarian. The
attending veterinarian for a facility, whether full- or part-time,
would need to document and maintain a record that the space in all
enclosures housing birds are adequate and allow for normal postural and
social adjustments. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of
malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior
patterns.
We would provide three exceptions to this space requirement. First,
we are proposing that the species-typical postural or social
adjustments of a bird may be restricted when the attending veterinarian
determines that allowing the bird to make normal postural and social
adjustments would be detrimental to its good health and well-being. We
propose that the species-typical postural or social adjustments of a
bird may be restricted--for instance, in the case of a bird having
undergone a medical procedure whose recovery could be adversely
impacted unless movement is restricted--where the attending
veterinarian determines that making normal postural and social
adjustments would be detrimental to the bird's good health and
recovery. The attending veterinarian would have to document the reason
and recommended duration for the restriction and make such records
available for review by an APHIS inspector.
Second, we would provide that a bird's normal postural and social
adjustments may be restricted where the bird is tethered in accordance
with professionally accepted standards. We would provide that a bird
may only be tethered if: (1) It is appropriate for the species; (2) it
will not cause any form of harm to the bird; (3) the bird is maintained
on a perch appropriate for the species and age of the bird while
tethered; (4) the bird has sufficient space to fully extend its wings
without obstruction; and (5) the tether does not entangle the bird.
Third, we would provide that, when dealers, exhibitors, and
research facilities breed or intend to breed their birds, such birds
would have to be provided with structures and/or materials that meet
the reproductive needs of the species during the appropriate season or
time periods. A sufficient number of structures and materials must be
provided to meet the needs of all breeding birds in an enclosure and to
minimize aggression.
Fourth, we would provide that birds intended for breeding sale, in
need of medical care, exhibited in traveling exhibits, or traveling for
other reasons would have to be kept in enclosures that, at minimum,
meet the specific space, safety, bedding, perch, and physical
environment (including, but not limited to, temperature, humidity, sun
and wind exposure) requirements for transport enclosures as specified
in proposed Sec. 3.162. At all other times, we would require that
birds be housed in enclosures that meet the space requirements of this
section.
Primary Enclosures: Special Space Requirements for Wading and Aquatic
Birds--Proposed Sec. 3.153(c)
Wading and aquatic birds are active on both land and water and
require access to pools or other aquatic areas (e.g., ponds,
waterfalls, fountains, and other water features) to ensure their health
and well-being. Therefore, we are proposing to require that primary
enclosures housing wading and aquatic birds contain a pool or other
aquatic area and a dry activity area that allows easy ingress or egress
of the pool or other aquatic area. We would require that the pool or
other aquatic area be of sufficient surface area and depth to allow
each bird to make normal postural and social adjustments, such as
immersion, bathing, swimming, and foraging, with adequate freedom of
movement and freedom to escape from aggression demonstrated by other
birds in the enclosure. Similarly, the dry areas would have to be of
sufficient size to allow each bird to make normal postural and social
adjustments with adequate freedom of movement and freedom to escape
from aggression demonstrated by other birds in the enclosure.
Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor
condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns.
Environment Enhancement To Promote Psychological Well-Being--Proposed
Sec. 3.154
As evidenced by first-hand observation and scientific studies, many
species of birds exhibit a level of intelligence and an ability to
solve problems approaching that of higher mammals. As the regulations
in subpart D, Sec. 3.81, require a plan to provide environmental
enhancement for nonhuman primates that includes social grouping and
enrichment requirements, we are likewise proposing a set of
requirements specifically for birds in a proposed Sec. 3.154.
Under the proposed requirements, dealers, exhibitors, and research
facilities would need to develop, document, and follow a species-
appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the
psychological well-being of birds. The plan, which would be part of the
required program of veterinary care, would have to be approved by a
veterinarian and be in accordance with the other regulations proposed
in Subpart G--Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment,
and Transportation of Birds. The plan would also have to conform with
currently accepted professional standards.
We note that environmental enhancements, while essential to the
psychological well-being of many birds, do not typically require
extensive or costly facility modifications. Depending on the species,
enhancement actions in a plan could include ensuring that birds are
kept in appropriate social groupings, that they are given opportunities
to forage, or that they have access to species-appropriate perches and
chewing materials.
The plan for environment enhancement would be made available to
APHIS upon request, and also, in the case of research facilities, to
officials of any pertinent funding agency. The plan, at a minimum,
would need to address social grouping needs, environmental enrichment,
special considerations for young birds and birds needing to be isolated
due to aggression or disease, use of restraints, and birds exempted
from the plan.
Environment Enhancement To Promote Psychological Well-Being: Social
Grouping--Proposed Sec. 3.154(a)
Under proposed Sec. 3.154(a), the environment enhancement plan
would need to include specific provisions to address the social needs
of birds of species known to exist in social groups in nature. Such
specific provisions would have to be in accordance with currently
accepted professional standards. Birds that are overly aggressive,
debilitated, or in need of isolation due to a contagious disease may be
excepted from social grouping requirements. One or more birds
[[Page 9896]]
suspected of contagious diseases may be isolated from healthy animals
prior to and as directed by the attending veterinarian or as instructed
in the program of veterinary care. When an entire group or room of
birds is known to have been or believed to be exposed to an infectious
agent, the group could be kept intact during the process of diagnosis,
treatment, and control.
We also propose to require that birds may only be housed with other
animals, including members of their own species, if they are
compatible, do not prevent access to food, water, or shelter by
individual animals, and are not known to be hazardous to the health and
well-being of each other. We would require that bird compatibility be
determined in accordance with generally accepted professional practices
and observations by the attending veterinarian during his or her
regularly scheduled visits to the facility. In addition, we would
require that individually housed social species of birds are able to
see and hear birds of their own or compatible species unless determined
otherwise by the veterinarian.
Environment Enhancement To Promote Psychological Well-Being:
Environmental Enrichment--Proposed Sec. 3.154(b)
Proposed Sec. 3.154(b) would require that the plan address
species-specific environmental enrichment for birds. Under this
requirement, the plan would include enrichment materials or activities
that would provide the birds with the means to express noninjurious
species-typical activities. Examples of environmental enrichments could
include providing perches, swings, mirrors, and other increased cage
complexities; providing objects to manipulate; varied food items; using
foraging or task-oriented feeding methods; and providing interaction
with the care giver or other familiar and knowledgeable person
consistent with personnel safety precautions.
Environment Enhancement To Promote Psychological Well-Being: Special
Considerations--Proposed Sec. 3.154(c)
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that special considerations
for certain birds be included in the enhancement plan. Such birds,
determined based on the needs of the individual species and under the
instructions of the attending veterinarian, include infants and young
juveniles, birds showing signs of psychological distress through
behavior or appearance, birds used in research for which an IACUC-
approved protocol requires restricted activity, and individually housed
social species of birds that are unable to see and hear birds of their
own or compatible species.
Environment Enhancement To Promote Psychological Well-Being: Restraint
Devices--Proposed Sec. 3.154(d)
We would impose restrictions on restraint devices in proposed
paragraph (d). Birds would not be permitted to be maintained in
restraint devices unless required for health reasons as determined by
the attending veterinarian or approved by a research facility. Any
restraining actions would have to be for the shortest period possible.
If the bird is to be restrained for more than 12 hours, it must be
provided the opportunity daily for unrestrained activity for at least 1
continuous hour during the period of restraint, unless continuous
restraint is required by the research proposal approved by the IACUC at
research facilities.
Environment Enhancement To Promote Psychological Well-Being:
Exemptions--Proposed Sec. 3.154(e)
Proposed Sec. 3.154(e) would provide that the attending
veterinarian may exempt a bird from participation in the environment
enhancement plan due to considerations of health or condition and well-
being. The basis of the exemption would have to be recorded by the
attending veterinarian for each exempted bird. Unless the exemption is
based on a permanent condition, we would require a review of the
exemption by the attending veterinarian every 30 days.
For a research facility, the IACUC may exempt an individual bird
from participation in some or all of the otherwise required environment
enhancement plans for scientific reasons set forth in the research
proposal. The basis of the exemption shall be documented in the
approved proposal and must be reviewed at appropriate intervals as
determined by the IACUC, but not less than annually.
Finally, we would also require in paragraph (e) that records of any
exemptions must be maintained by the dealer, exhibitor, or research
facility for at least 1 year in accordance with Sec. 2.80 and must be
made available to APHIS officials, and also to officials of any
pertinent funding agency upon request.
Animal Health and Husbandry Standards
Feeding--Proposed Sec. 3.155
The nutritional needs of birds vary greatly. Therefore, we are
proposing a general feeding standard that is flexible enough to ensure
the health and well-being of all birds. Specifically, we would require
that the diet be appropriate for the species, size, age, and condition
of the bird. The food would have to be wholesome, palatable to the
birds, and free of contamination. The food would also have to be of
sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain a healthy condition
and weight range of the bird and to meet its normal daily nutritional
requirements. We would require that birds be fed at least once a day
except as directed by the attending veterinarian. If birds are
maintained in group housing, measures appropriate for the species would
have to be taken to ensure that all the birds receive a sufficient
quantity of food. For example, for some flighted birds, such measures
may include locating multiple food receptacles at different levels in
the enclosure to ensure that all the birds have access to food
receptacles and the food contained therein, including birds that are
ranked low in a dominance hierarchy.
Food and, if used, food receptacles would have to be readily
accessible to all the birds being fed. Food and any food receptacles
would have to be located so as to minimize any risk of contamination by
excreta, precipitation (e.g., rain, hail, and snow), and pests. Food
receptacles and feeding areas would have to be kept clean and sanitized
in accordance with proposed Sec. 3.158. Used food receptacles would
have to be cleaned and sanitized before they can be used to provide
food to birds maintained in a separate enclosure. We would also require
that measures be taken to ensure there is no molding, deterioration,
contamination, or caking or undesirable wetting or freezing of food
within or on food receptacles. Food receptacles would have to be made
of a durable material that can be easily cleaned and sanitized or
replaced when worn or soiled. Group-housed birds would have to have
multiple food receptacles where needed to ensure that all birds have
access to sufficient feed.
Watering--Proposed Sec. 3.156
Under proposed Sec. 3.156, potable water would have to be provided
in sufficient quantity to every bird housed at the facility, unless
restricted by the attending veterinarian. If potable water is not
continually available to the birds, it would need to be offered to them
as often as necessary to ensure their health and well-being. In
addition, water receptacles would have to be kept clean and sanitized
in accordance with Sec. 3.158 as often as necessary to keep them free
of contamination. Used water
[[Page 9897]]
receptacles must be cleaned and sanitized before they may be used to
provide water to birds maintained in a separate enclosure. Finally,
group-housed birds would have to have multiple water receptacles where
needed to ensure that all birds have access to sufficient water.
Water Quality--Proposed Sec. 3.157
Water quality is important for birds active on both land and water,
and at least minimum water quality standards need to be maintained for
the good health and well-being of the animals. Therefore, we are
proposing that, if the primary enclosure or other areas in which birds
may enter contain pools or other aquatic areas (e.g., ponds,
waterfalls, fountains, and other water features), such areas must not
be detrimental to the health of the birds contained therein.
Particulate animal and food waste, trash, or debris that enters such
pools or other aquatic areas would have to be removed as often as
necessary to maintain the required water quality and minimize health
hazards to the birds. Pools or other aquatic areas that are equipped
with drainage systems would have to provide adequate drainage so that
all of the water contained in such areas may be effectively eliminated
when necessary to clean the pool or other aquatic area and for other
purposes while not risking harm to birds. Pools or other aquatic areas
with standing water, such as some ponds, would have to be aerated and
have an incoming flow of fresh water or be managed in another manner to
maintain appropriate water quality in accordance with current
professionally accepted standards for the bird species in these ponds.
When the water is chemically treated, the chemicals would have to
be added so as not to cause harm, discomfort, or distress to the
animals. Natural organisms (such as fish, reptiles, amphibians,
mammals, algae, commensal bacteria, protozoa, coelenterates, or
mollusks) that do not degrade water quality, prevent proper
maintenance, or pose a health hazard to the birds would not be
considered contaminants. Should birds appear to be harmed by water
quality, appropriate action would have to be taken immediately.
Finally, pools or other aquatic areas would have to be salinized
for birds that require salinized water for their good health and well-
being in accordance with current professionally accepted standards.
Cleaning, Sanitization, Housekeeping, and Pest Control
Cleaning--Proposed Sec. 3.158(a)
Proper cleaning of primary enclosures is necessary to prevent the
accumulation of feces and food waste and to reduce disease hazards,
pests, insects, and odors. Therefore, we are proposing to require that
excreta and food waste be removed from primary enclosures and from
under and around primary enclosures as often as necessary to prevent
excessive accumulation of feces and food waste, to prevent soiling of
the birds contained in the primary enclosures, and to reduce disease
hazards, insects, pests, and odors. When steam or water is used to
clean primary enclosures, measures would have to be taken to protect
birds from being harmed, wetted involuntarily, or distressed in the
process. Standing water, except in pools or other aquatic areas (e.g.,
ponds, waterfalls, fountains, and other water features), would have to
be removed from the primary enclosure.
Scheduled cleaning may be modified or delayed during breeding, egg-
sitting, or feeding of chicks for those species of birds that are
easily disrupted during such behaviors. Scheduled cleaning would have
to resume when cleaning would no longer disrupt such behaviors. In
these situations, we would require that a schedule of cleaning be
documented that includes when breeding season began, when the primary
enclosure was last cleaned, and when cleaning is expected to resume.
Such records would have to be available for review by an APHIS
inspector.
Sanitization--Proposed Sec. 3.158(b)
Proper sanitary practices directly affect the good health and well-
being of birds. Primary enclosures and food and water receptacles for
birds would have to be sanitized as often as necessary to prevent
accumulation of dirt, debris, food waste, excreta, and other disease
hazards. However, as with cleaning, sanitization may be modified or
delayed during breeding, egg-sitting, or feeding of chicks for those
species of birds that are easily disrupted during such behaviors but
would have to resume when it no longer disrupts such behaviors. In such
situations, we would require that a schedule of sanitization be
documented that includes when breeding season began, when the primary
enclosure was last sanitized, and when sanitization is expected to
resume. Such records would have to be available for review by an APHIS
inspector.
We would require that the hard surfaces of primary enclosures and
food and water areas and equipment be sanitized before a new bird may
be brought into a housing facility or if there is evidence of
infectious disease among the birds in the housing facility. Finally, we
would require that primary enclosures using materials that cannot be
sanitized using conventional methods, such as gravel, sand, grass,
earth, planted areas, or absorbent bedding, be sanitized by removing
all contaminated material as necessary or by establishing a natural
composting and decomposition system that is sufficient to prevent
wasted food accumulation, odors, disease, pests, insects, and vermin
infestation.
Housekeeping for Premises--Proposed Sec. 3.158(c)
Good housekeeping practices are essential in minimizing pest risks
that can occur in animal areas. Premises where housing facilities are
located, including buildings, surrounding grounds, and exhibit areas,
would have to be kept clean and in good repair in order to protect the
birds from injury and disease, to facilitate the husbandry practices
required in the regulations, and to reduce or eliminate areas where
rodents and other vertebrate and invertebrate animals harmful to birds
can live and breed. Premises would also have to be kept free of
accumulations of trash, junk, waste products, and discarded matter.
Weeds, grasses, and bushes would have to be controlled so as to
facilitate cleaning of the premises and pest control, and to protect
the health and well-being of the birds.
Pest Control--Proposed Sec. 3.158(d)
A pest control program is necessary to promote the health and well-
being of birds at a facility and to reduce contamination by pests in
the animal area. Therefore, we are proposing that a safe and effective
program for the control of insects, ectoparasites, and avian and
mammalian pests be established and maintained so as to promote the
health and well-being of the birds and reduce contamination by pests in
animal areas. Insecticides, chemical agents, or other methods of
controlling pests that may be harmful to the birds would be prohibited
in primary enclosures and in other areas or on surfaces with which the
birds may come in contact, unless their application is consistent with
manufacturer recommendations or otherwise approved for use and does not
harm birds.
Employees--Proposed Sec. 3.159
A sufficient number of adequately trained employees or attendants
would
[[Page 9898]]
have to be utilized to maintain the professionally acceptable level of
husbandry and handling practices set forth in the proposed standards.
The need for personnel to have the knowledge and skill to perform these
practices is addressed in the current standards for all other animals
covered under the AWA regulations. These practices would be conducted
under the supervision of a bird caretaker who has appropriate
experience in the husbandry and care of birds that are being managed in
a given setting.
Compatibility and Separation--Proposed Sec. 3.160
Under this section, we would require that socially dependent birds
be housed in social groups, unless the attending veterinarian exempts
an individual bird because of its health or condition, or in
consideration of its well-being, or specific management needs.
Veterinary exemption is also permissible where such social grouping is
not in accordance with a research proposal and the proposal has been
approved by the research facility IACUC. Birds may only be housed with
other animals, including members of their own species, if they are
compatible, do not prevent access to food, water, or shelter by
individual animals, and are not known to be hazardous to the health and
well-being of each other. Compatibility would have to be determined in
accordance with generally accepted professional practices, and by
actual observation, to ensure that the birds are, in fact, compatible.
Finally, we would require that birds that have or are suspected of
having a contagious disease or communicable condition must be separated
from healthy animals that are susceptible to the disease as directed by
the attending veterinarian. These proposed requirements are necessary
to allow birds to peacefully coexist in primary enclosures and to
protect their physical health and welfare.
Transportation Standards
The proposed transportation standards contained in Sec. Sec. 3.161
through 3.168 have been written to provide birds with the same general
protection and care as that provided for other species of animals
covered by the AWA. Some birds, however, do have special transportation
needs. For example, while most birds require space to make normal
postural adjustments during transport, there are some birds that may
injure themselves if their movements are not restricted. Therefore, the
intention of the proposed transportation standards for birds is to
account for these animals' unique needs while still providing them with
equivalent protection and care as other covered animals.
We note that many foreign air carriers are members of the
International Air Transport Association (IATA) and may already comply
with most of the physical requirements contained in this proposed rule.
The IATA regulations generally align with the intent of the AWA in
ensuring the humane and safe transportation of animals but diverge from
the proposed regulations and standards in certain areas, such as
recordkeeping requirements. Where such divergences exist, the AWA
regulations and standards would need to be followed.
Consignments to Carriers and Intermediate Handlers--Proposed Sec.
3.161
Regulated entities, such as dealers and exhibitors, may elect to
consign their bird to a carrier or intermediate handler in connection
with the animal's transportation in commerce. To ensure the health and
well-being of birds during such transport in commerce, we are proposing
to establish several conditions that must be met before carriers and
intermediate handlers can accept a bird for transport. Specifically, we
would provide that carriers and intermediate handlers must not accept a
live bird for transport in commerce more than 4 hours before the
scheduled departure time of the primary conveyance on which the animal
is to be transported. However, we would provide that a carrier or
intermediate handler may agree with anyone consigning a bird to extend
this time by up to 2 hours if specific prior scheduling of the animal
shipment to a destination has been made, provided that the extension is
not detrimental to the health and well-being of the bird as determined
by the consignor.
Carriers and intermediate handlers would not be allowed to accept a
live bird for transport in commerce unless they are provided with the
name, address, and telephone number of the consignee. Carriers and
intermediate handlers would also not be allowed to accept a live bird
for transport in commerce unless the consignor certifies in writing to
the carrier or intermediate handler that the bird was offered food and
water during the 4 hours prior to delivery to the carrier or
intermediate handler. Carriers and intermediate handlers must not
accept unweaned birds for transport unless transport instructions are
specified as a part of the program of veterinary care.
Certification for shipment of birds would have to be securely
attached to the outside of the primary enclosure in a manner that makes
it easy to notice and read. The certification would have to include the
following information for each live bird: The consignor's name,
address, email address, and telephone number; the number of birds; the
species or common names of the birds; the time and date the bird was
last fed and watered; and the specific instructions for the next
feeding(s) and watering(s) for a 24-hour period; and the consignor's
signature and the date and time the certification was signed.
Carriers and intermediate handlers would not be allowed to accept a
live bird for transport in commerce in a primary enclosure unless the
enclosure meets the requirements of proposed Sec. 3.162. A carrier or
intermediate handler would be prohibited from accepting a live bird for
transport if the primary enclosure is defective or damaged and cannot
be expected to contain the bird safely and comfortably.
Carriers and intermediate handlers would also not be allowed to
accept a live bird for transport in commerce unless their animal
holding area can maintain climatic and environmental conditions in
accordance with the requirements of proposed Sec. 3.168. (As discussed
below, Sec. 3.168 sets out climatic and environmental conditions for
the transportation of animals and requires, among other things, that
such transportation must be done in a manner that does not cause
overheating, excessive cooling, or adverse environmental conditions
that could cause discomfort or stress.)
Following the arrival of any live birds at the bird holding area of
the terminal cargo facility, we would require that carriers and
intermediate handlers attempt to notify the consignee at least once in
every 6-hour period. The time, date, and method of each attempted
notification and the final notification to the consignee and the name
of the person notifying the consignee would have to be recorded on the
copy of the shipping document retained by the carrier or intermediate
handler and on a copy of the shipping document accompanying the bird
shipment.
Primary Enclosures Used To Transport Live Birds
Under proposed Sec. 3.162, no person subject to the AWA
regulations would be allowed to transport or deliver for transport in
commerce a bird unless the following requirements are met:
[[Page 9899]]
Primary Enclosures: Construction of Primary Enclosures--Proposed Sec.
3.162(a)
Birds would have to be contained in a primary enclosure such as a
compartment, transport cage, carton, or crate, except as provided in
proposed paragraph (e) in Sec. 3.162. Primary enclosures used to
transport birds would have to be constructed so that:
<bullet> The primary enclosure is strong enough to contain the
birds securely and comfortably and to withstand the rigors of
transportation normally encountered during transportation;
<bullet> The interior of the enclosure has no sharp points or edges
and no protrusions that could injure the birds contained therein;
<bullet> The bird is at all times securely contained within the
enclosure and cannot put any part of its body outside the enclosure in
a way that could result in injury to itself, to handlers, or to other
persons or to other animals nearby;
<bullet> The birds can be easily and quickly removed from the
enclosure in an emergency;
<bullet> Unless the enclosure is permanently affixed to the
conveyance, adequate handholds or other devices such as handles are
provided on its exterior, and enable the enclosure to be lifted without
tilting it, and ensure that anyone handling the enclosure will not be
in contact with the bird contained inside;
<bullet> Unless the enclosure is permanently affixed to the
conveyance, it is clearly marked on top and on one or more sides with
the words ``Live Animals,'' in letters at least 1 inch (2.5
centimeters) high, and with arrows or other markings to indicate the
correct upright position of the primary enclosure;
<bullet> Any material, treatment, paint, preservative, or other
chemical used in or on the enclosure is nontoxic to the bird and not
harmful to its health or well-being;
<bullet> A bird that has a fractious or stress-prone disposition
must be contained in an enclosure that is padded on the top and sides
and has protective substrate on the bottom to prevent injury to the
bird during transport;
<bullet> Proper ventilation must be provided to the birds in
accordance with proposed paragraph (b) in Sec. 3.162;
<bullet> The primary enclosure has a solid, leak-proof bottom or a
removable, leak-proof collection tray. If a mesh or other nonsolid
floor is used in the enclosure, it would have to be designed and
constructed so that the bird cannot put any part of its body through
the holes in the mesh or the openings in the nonsolid floor; and
<bullet> If substrate (newspaper, towels, litter, straw, etc.) is
used in the primary enclosure, the substrate would have to be clean and
made of a suitably absorbent material that is safe and nontoxic to the
birds.
These proposed standards would consider the need for birds to be
supported and protected from injury during transportation.
Primary Enclosures: Ventilation--Proposed Sec. 3.162(b)
Ventilation is very important to ensure that birds are provided
adequate fresh air for their respiratory needs. Therefore, unless the
primary enclosure is permanently affixed to the conveyance, there would
have to be ventilation openings located on two vertical walls of the
primary enclosure that are at least 16 percent of the surface area of
each such wall or ventilation openings located on all four walls of the
primary enclosure that are at least 8 percent of the total surface area
of each such wall. At least one-third of the total minimum area
required for ventilation of the primary enclosure would have to be
located on the lower one-half of the primary enclosure, and at least
one-third of the total minimum area required for ventilation of the
primary enclosure must be located on the upper one-half of the primary
enclosure. This requirement would be modeled on our existing
ventilation requirements for rabbits, which we have found to provide
sufficient ventilation for the purposes of humane care.
Unless the primary enclosure is permanently affixed to the
conveyance, we would require that projecting rims or other devices be
on the exterior of the outside walls with any ventilation openings to
prevent obstruction of the ventilation openings. The projecting rims or
similar devices would have to be large enough to provide a minimum air
circulation space of 0.75 inches (1.9 centimeters) between the primary
enclosure and anything the enclosure is adjacent to, unless 90 percent
or greater of the surface area of the enclosure wall is open (e.g.,
cage mesh). We would require that any visually obscuring mesh used to
provide security for the bird in the enclosure not interfere with
proper ventilation. Again, this requirement is modeled on an existing
requirement, found in paragraph (a)(5) of Sec. 3.61 of the
regulations, that we have found to be effective.
If a primary enclosure is permanently affixed within the animal
cargo space of the primary conveyance so that the front opening is the
only source of ventilation for such primary enclosure, the front
opening would have to open directly to the outside or to an
unobstructed aisle or passageway within the primary conveyance. Such
front ventilation opening would have to be at least 90 percent of the
total surface area of the front wall of the primary enclosure and
covered with bars, wire mesh, or smooth expanded metal.
Primary Enclosures: Cleaning of Primary Enclosures--Proposed Sec.
3.162(c)
Primary enclosures used to hold or transport birds in commerce
would have to be cleaned and sanitized before each use in accordance
with proposed Sec. 3.158 by the dealer, research facility, exhibitor,
or operator of an auction sale.
Primary Enclosures: Compatibility--Proposed Sec. 3.162(d)
Live birds transported in the same primary enclosure would have to
be of the same species or compatible species and maintained in
compatible groups. Socially dependent birds would have to be able to
see and hear each other.
Primary Enclosures: Space and Placement--Proposed Sec. 3.162(e)
We would require that primary enclosures used to transport live
birds be large enough to ensure that each bird contained therein has
sufficient space to turn about freely and to make normal postural
adjustments, except that certain species may be restricted in their
movements according to professionally accepted standards when such
freedom of movement would constitute a danger to the birds, their
handlers, or other persons.
Primary Enclosures: Accompanying Documents and Records--Proposed Sec.
3.162(f)
Documents accompanying the shipment of birds would have to be
attached in an easily accessible manner to the outside of a primary
enclosure which is part of such shipment and could not be allowed to
obstruct ventilation openings.
Primary Conveyances (Motor Vehicle, Rail, Air, and Marine)--Proposed
Sec. 3.163
We would require that the animal cargo space of primary conveyances
used in transporting live birds be designed, constructed, and
maintained in a manner that at all times protects the health and well-
being of the animals transported in them, ensures their safety and
comfort, and minimizes the entry of exhaust from the primary conveyance
during transportation. The animal cargo space would have to have a
supply of
[[Page 9900]]
air that is sufficient for the normal breathing of all the animals
being transported in it, and each primary enclosure containing birds
would have to be positioned in the animal cargo space in a manner that
provides protection from the elements and that allows each bird enough
air for normal breathing. During transportation, we would require that
the climatic conditions in the animal cargo area shall be maintained in
accordance with the requirements of proposed Sec. 3.168.
We would require that primary enclosures be positioned in the
primary conveyance in a manner that allows the birds to be quickly and
easily removed from the primary conveyance in an emergency. We would
also require that the interior of the bird cargo space be kept clean.
Finally, we would provide that live birds may not be transported with
any material, substance (e.g., dry ice), or device which may reasonably
be expected to be injurious to the health and well-being of the birds
unless proper precaution is taken to prevent such injury.
Food and Water Requirements--Proposed Sec. 3.164
All weaned birds would have to be offered food and potable water
within 4 hours before being transported in commerce. We would also
require all birds transported in their own primary conveyance be
provided potable water or other source of hydration to at least every
12 hours after such transportation is initiated, except for birds
which, according to professionally accepted standards, require watering
or feeding more or less frequently.
All weaned birds would have to be fed at least once in each 24-hour
period, except as directed by veterinary treatment, normal fasts, or
other professionally accepted standards. Birds that require feeding
more or less frequently would have to be fed accordingly.
A sufficient quantity of food and water or other source of
hydration would have to accompany the bird to meet its needs for food
and water during period of transport, except as directed by veterinary
treatment and other professionally accepted standards. Any dealer,
research facility, exhibitor, or operator of an auction sale offering
any live bird to any carrier or intermediate handler for transportation
in commerce would have to securely affix to the outside of the primary
enclosure used for transporting the bird written instructions for the
in-transit food and water requirements of the bird contained in the
enclosure. We would prohibit carriers and intermediate handlers from
accepting any live birds for transportation in commerce unless written
instructions concerning the food and water requirements of the bird
being transported are affixed to the outside of its primary enclosure.
The instructions would have to be attached in accordance with proposed
Sec. 3.162(f) and in a manner that makes them easy to notice and read.
Care in Transit--Proposed Sec. 3.165
Care in Transit: Surface Transportation (Ground and Water)--Proposed
Sec. 3.165(a)
During surface transportation, we would require in Sec. 3.165(a)
that any person subject to the AWA regulations transporting birds in
commerce must ensure that the operator of the conveyance, or a person
accompanying the operator, visually observes the birds as frequently as
circumstances may allow, but not less than once every 4 hours, to
ensure that the birds are receiving sufficient air for normal
breathing, that climatic and environmental conditions are being
maintained in accordance with the requirements in proposed Sec. 3.168,
and that all other applicable standards are met. The regulated person
would have to ensure that the operator or person accompanying the
operator determines whether any of the birds are in physical distress
and obtains any veterinary care needed for the birds as soon as
possible.
Care in Transit: Air Transportation--Proposed Sec. 3.165(b)
Similarly, when transported by air, we would require in Sec.
3.165(b) that live birds be visually observed by the carrier as
frequently as circumstances may allow, but not less than once every 4
hours, if the animal cargo space is accessible during flight. If the
animal cargo space is not accessible during flight, the carrier would
have to visually observe the live birds whenever they are loaded and
unloaded and whenever the bird cargo space is otherwise accessible to
ensure that they are receiving sufficient air for normal breathing,
that climatic and environmental conditions are being maintained in
accordance with the requirements in proposed Sec. 3.168, and that all
other applicable standards are met. The carrier would have to determine
whether any such live birds are in physical distress and arrange for
any needed veterinary care as soon as possible.
Care in Transit: Prohibition on the Transport of Ill, Injured, or
Distressed Birds--Proposed Sec. 3.165(c)
Finally, in proposed Sec. 3.165(c), we would prohibit any person
subject to the AWA regulations from transporting in commerce birds that
are ill, injured, or in physical distress, except to receive veterinary
care for the condition.
Terminal Facilities--Proposed Sec. 3.166
Terminal Facilities: Placement--Proposed Sec. 3.166(a)
We would require that carriers and intermediate handlers not
commingle shipments of live birds with other animals or inanimate cargo
in animal holding areas of terminal facilities. This proposed standard
would help to ensure that the live birds are accessible and that the
following standards concerning cleaning, sanitization, and pest control
in terminal facilities are met.
Terminal Facilities: Cleaning, Sanitization, and Pest Control--Proposed
Sec. 3.166(b)
We are proposing to require that all animal holding areas of
terminal facilities be cleaned and sanitized in a manner prescribed in
proposed Sec. 3.158, as often as necessary to prevent an accumulation
of debris or excreta and to minimize vermin infestation and disease
hazards. Terminal facilities would have to follow an effective program
in all animal holding areas for the control of insects, ectoparasites,
and other pests.
Terminal Facilities: Ventilation--Proposed Sec. 3.166(c)
We would require that ventilation be provided in any animal holding
area in a terminal facility containing birds, by means of windows,
doors, vents, or air conditioning. The air would have to be circulated
by fans, blowers, or air conditioning so as to minimize drafts, odors,
and moisture condensation.
Terminal Facilities: Climactic and Environmental Conditions--Proposed
Sec. 3.166(d)
We would require that the climatic and environmental conditions in
animal holding areas be maintained in accordance with the proposed
performance standard in Sec. 3.168.
Handling--Proposed Sec. 3.167
We are proposing to require that any person subject to the AWA
regulations who moves (including loading and unloading) live birds
within, to, or from the animal holding area of a terminal facility or a
primary conveyance does so as quickly and efficiently as possible and
provides sufficient shade to protect the birds from the direct rays of
the sun and sufficient protection to allow the birds the option to
remain dry during rain, snow, and other precipitation. We would also
require that climatic and
[[Page 9901]]
environmental conditions be maintained in accordance with the proposed
requirements in Sec. 3.168.
We would require that any person handling a primary enclosure
containing a live bird uses care and avoids causing physical harm or
distress to the bird. We would not allow a primary enclosure containing
a live bird to be tossed, dropped, or tilted, or stacked in a manner
which may reasonably be expected to result in its falling.
Climatic and Environmental Conditions During Transportation--Proposed
Sec. 3.168
Finally, we are proposing to require that the transportation of all
live birds be done in a manner that does not cause overheating,
excessive cooling, or adverse environmental conditions that could cause
discomfort or stress. When climatic or environmental conditions,
including temperature, humidity, exposure, ventilation, pressurization,
time, or other environmental conditions, or any combination thereof,
present a threat to the health or well-being of a live bird,
appropriate measures would have to be taken immediately to alleviate
the impact of those conditions. The different climatic and
environmental factors prevailing during a journey would have to be
considered when arranging for the transportation of and when
transporting live birds. Considerations may include, but would not be
limited to:
<bullet> The temperature and humidity level of any enclosure used
during transportation of live birds would have to be controlled by
adequate ventilation or any other means necessary;
<bullet> Appropriate care would have to be taken to ensure that
live birds are not subjected to prolonged drafts detrimental to their
health or well-being;
<bullet> Appropriate care would have to be taken to ensure that
live birds are not exposed to direct heat or cold if detrimental to
their health or well-being, such as placement in direct sunlight or
near a hot radiator; and
<bullet> During prolonged air transit stops in local climatic
conditions that could produce excessive heat for live birds held in
aircraft compartments, the aircraft doors would have to be opened and,
if necessary, ground equipment must be used to control the condition of
the air within compartments containing live birds.
We would also provide examples of factors to consider when meeting
these requirements. Specifically, we would state that, in order to
determine what climatic and environmental conditions are appropriate
for a live bird, factors such as, but not limited to, the bird's age,
species, physiological state, last feeding and watering, and
acclimation would have to be considered when such information is
available.
Finally, for birds that are not able to maintain a constant body
temperature at ambient temperatures, we would require their
transportation in a brooder or other temperature-regulating unit that
effectively assists the bird in maintaining a constant body temperature
during transport. Signs that a bird is able to independently maintain a
constant body temperature include the bird's ability to open its eyes
fully and sit erect and the appearance of full or partial feathering on
the body of the bird.
We would require that the temperature of the brooder or other
temperature-regulating unit would have to be monitored during
transportation and appropriate for the live bird. Written instructions
for the temperature requirements of birds transported in brooders or
other temperature-regulating units would have to be securely affixed to
the outside of the primary enclosure used for transporting the bird.
The instructions would have to be attached in accordance with proposed
Sec. 3.162(f) in a manner that makes them easily noticed and read.
We believe the standards we propose in this document would ensure
the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
covered by the AWA.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis
also provides an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that examines
the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or
on the <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> website (see ADDRESSES above for instructions
for accessing <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>).
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude
that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive
analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities.
Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation
of this proposed rule.
We are proposing to establish new regulations and standards and
amend existing regulations governing the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds, other than birds bred for use
in research, covered under the Animal Welfare Act. This action would
ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of
birds not bred for use in research covered under the Act. The benefit
of this rule would be improved animal welfare because certain birds
would be brought under the protection of the AWA. The proposed rule
would help ensure the humane handling and care of birds and help ensure
that such birds are monitored for their health and humane treatment.
The proposed rule would affect U.S. facilities that handle or
maintain birds not bred for use in research that are sold as pets at
the wholesale level or at retail if not face-to face, or transported in
commerce, or used for exhibition, research, teaching, testing, or
experimentation purposes. Facilities affected would include research
facilities that use wild-caught birds, breeders and distributors of
birds, and exhibitors of birds, as well as carriers and intermediate
handlers of birds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Only those research facilities that use wild-caught birds
for research, testing, teaching, or experimentation, including
activities such as investigations into animal propagation and
wildlife ecology, would be subject to the provisions of this
proposed rule. Facilities using birds bred for use in research would
not be subject to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that under the current AWA regulations, several licensing
exemptions exist that would apply to persons possessing and using birds
who are not otherwise required to obtain a license. Retail pet stores,
as defined in the regulations and requiring the seller,
[[Page 9902]]
buyer, and the animal available for sale be physically present, are
exempt from the licensing requirements. Therefore, under this proposed
rule, bird breeders who sell pet birds strictly under the conditions of
the definition would not be affected. In addition, the current
regulations provide an exemption for any person who sells or negotiates
the sale or purchase of any animal except wild or exotic animals, dogs,
or cats, and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale
of such animals during any calendar year and is not otherwise required
to obtain a license. Exemptions are also provided for any person who
maintains four or fewer breeding females and sells only the offspring
for pets or exhibition; any person who arranges for transportation or
transports animals solely for the purpose of breeding, exhibiting in
purebred shows, boarding (not in association with commercial
transportation), grooming, or medical treatment, and is not otherwise
required to obtain a license; any person who buys, sells, transports,
or negotiates the sale, purchase, or transportation of any animals used
only for the purposes of food or fiber; any person who maintains eight
or fewer animals for exhibition; and any person who buys animals solely
for his or her own use or enjoyment and who does not sell or exhibit
animals. Under this proposal, these exemptions to licensing would apply
to bird breeders and bird exhibitors as well.
Newly regulated entities would be subject to licensing, animal
identification, and recordkeeping requirements, as well as standards
for facilities and operations, animal health and husbandry, and
transportation under this proposed rule. Licensing costs would be
incurred by all new licensees. Other costs would depend on the manner
and extent to which entities are not currently complying with the basic
standards under the AWA. Some of these costs would be one-time costs in
the first year, such as providing adequate shelter; others would recur
yearly, such as providing adequate veterinary care.
A great deal of uncertainty surrounds the number of facilities that
would be affected by this proposed rule. Uncertainty also surrounds the
number of those facilities that would need to make structural or
operational changes, as well as the extent of such changes. We are
seeking public input on those numbers and request any data support for
those comments. For the purposes of this analysis, we have estimated
that there could be as many as 5,625 new licensees--1,625 newly
regulated breeders and distributors and 4,000 newly regulated
exhibitors, and as many as 350 new registrants--250 newly regulated
research facilities and 100 newly regulated carriers and intermediate
handlers. For those new licensees, total new licensing costs could be
about $675,000, or about $225,000 annually. We have estimated that the
total annualized cost of the recordkeeping and other information
collection requirements to be about $4.5 million. If all newly
regulated licensees and registrants must develop new contingency
planning costs, the total cost could be from about $388,000 to $1.4
million. If all newly regulated dealers and research facilities must
develop a new written plan of veterinary care, the total new cost could
be about $881,000. Together, annually these costs range from about $3.3
million to $7 million. To the extent that facilities are already
keeping records, have already done contingency planning, and have
already developed a plan of veterinary care for their birds, these
costs could be overestimated.
For example, both the 2011 Guide for Care of Laboratory Animals and
the 2010 Guide for the Care of Agricultural Animals in Research (``the
Guide'') and the 2010 Guide for the Care of Agricultural Animals in
Research and Teaching (``the Ag-Guide'') require contingency planning
and emergency preparedness. Research facilities receiving funding from
the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) are required to follow standards
of care set forth in the Guide. PHS-funded research facilities that
utilize farm animals for biomedical research must follow either the
Guide or the Ag-Guide. Research facilities may voluntarily acquire
accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of
Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). AAALAC uses the Guide as
the standard when assessing animal care and use programs in the United
States. We are seeking comments from the public on the accuracy of
these costs and request any data support for those comments.
In addition to those requirements, newly regulated entities would
also need to meet regulatory standards for bird identification,
performance standards for facilities and operations, health and
husbandry, and transportation. However, as acknowledged by a wide
spectrum of commenters in listening sessions and during previous APHIS
actions, bird dealers and exhibitors are often complying with
professionally accepted standards to protect avian health and prevent
discomfort and thus maintain their facilities well above the minimum
standards of this proposed rule. Many of the proposed regulations are
performance based, rather than having specific engineering standards.
Therefore, a number of newly regulated entities would not need to make
significant structural and/or other operational changes in order to
comply with the standards in this proposed rule. Neither the number of
entities that would need to make changes nor the extent of those
changes is known. Therefore, the overall cost of structural and
operational changes that would be incurred due to this rule is also
unknown. However, commenters have identified potential costs that could
have an impact on regulated activities with birds and the general
potential magnitude of those costs are discussed. In addition, APHIS
estimates that the public outreach, guidance, and training would cost
about $726,000.
Table A--Potential Cost Categories for Licensees Associated With the
Rule
[2021 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Certain potential costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensing......................... $120/3 years.
Recordkeeping and Other 20 hours annually; $720/respondent.
Information Collection.
Contingency Planning.............. 1 to 2 hours preparation, and 1 hour
training; $65 to $226/entity.
Plan of Veterinary Care........... $150 per facility, new; $50 per
facility for an update.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Structural or Operational Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bird identification............... Leg or wing band $0.03-$0.50/each;
Microchip $4-$15/each; Microchip
reader $60-$375/facility; Labor for
banding or microchipping $28-$57;
Primary enclosure label <$0.02/
bird.
[[Page 9903]]
Veterinary care, as needed........ $46-$350/bird.
Facilities........................ $57-$114/repair.
Water and Electrical Power........ For facility with 20 birds $546 for
plumbed water or $90-$300 for
bottles; $400-$2,000/generator.
Temperature & Humidity............ Brood box thermometer $6-$150/each;
Space heating $25-$200.
Ventilation....................... Hardware cloth $20-$50; Attic fan
$50-$200 plus installation; HEPA
filter $100-$200.
Shelter........................... Nest box $57-$114.
Primary enclosures................ Commercial enclosures $100 to $1,000/
each; Repair or upgrade of existing
enclosure $278-$432.
Environment enhancement........... $100-$200/enclosure.
Cleaning, sanitation, and pest Storage container/shed $150-$1,000;
control. Label maker $20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor (includes other listed 1-10 hours/week; $1,477-$14,768/
activities). year.
Training.......................... $45-$75/employee.
Nutrition......................... Containers $10-$100; Commercial
freezer $250-$1,500.
Primary enclosures during Pet crates approved for air travel
transport. $60-$350.
Food, water, and health monitoring Brooder $150-$600.
during transit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of businesses potentially affected by this proposed
rule are likely to be small entities. As explained, the wide range in
potential cost is mainly derived from the uncertainty surrounding the
total number of breeders that would need to become licensed as a result
of this proposed rule and the number of those newly regulated entities
that would then need to make structural or operational changes, as well
as from the structural or operational changes that would be chosen to
remedy instances of noncompliance.
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 proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be
exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 requires
Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-
to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications,
including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation,
and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
APHIS has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, may
have substantial direct effects on one or more Tribes, and that
affording Tribes an opportunity for consultation is therefore
warranted. This initial consultation occurred on November 4, 2021. No
questions were raised during the consultation, but one participant
intended to email a question to APHIS at a future date. A summary of
how APHIS incorporated consultation feedback in this rulemaking will be
shared with Tribes that participate in consultation and in the next
rulemaking iteration, once published. APHIS is committed to full
compliance with the provisions of Executive Order 13175.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Many activities resulting from this proposed rule are currently
approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number
0579-0036; however, 0579-0036 does not capture the respondents or
burden described in this proposed rule. Therefore, in accordance with
section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the activities with respondents' burden resulting from this
proposed rule that are not covered under 0579-0036, and new activities
and their burden associated with this proposed rule, have been
submitted to OMB as a new information collection for approval. After a
final rule is published, this information collection request will be
scheduled for merger into 0579-0036 in the future.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice
to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 60-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Please send a copy
of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2020-0068, Regulatory
Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road
Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO,
USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250.
Administering the AWA requires the use of several information
collection activities. The increase in respondents resulting from this
proposed rule would result in a corresponding increase in burden for
activities currently approved under 0579-0036. In addition to
recordkeeping, they include online tools for licensing or registration
packets; applications for new license or registration, and updates;
filing of a debt collection form and payment of licensing fees; written
requests for correction of renewal applications; request for appeals or
hearings; requests for pre-licensing inspections;
[[Page 9904]]
inspections by licensed veterinarians; written programs of veterinary
care for research facilities, exhibitors, or dealers; annual reports of
research facilities; health certificates for transport; requests for
variance; written guarantees; submission of itineraries of exhibition;
complaint submissions; access and inspection of records and property;
and creating instituted animal care and use committees.
The proposed changes to the regulations would also result in the
creation of new reportable activities. These activities and any
additional ones announced in the final rule resulting from public
comment will be merged into 0579-0036 in the future after OMB approval.
In addition to recordkeeping, information collected includes, but is
not limited to, dealers and exhibitors identifying their confined birds
using either an enclosure label, leg or wing bands, or transponders.
They and research facilities will also be required to develop and
document a species-appropriate plan for environment enhancement
adequate to promote the psychological well-being of birds. Facilities
maintaining enclosed birds will be required to create and document
schedules of enclosure cleaning and sanitizing. Consignors will be
required to provide carriers and intermediate handlers certification in
writing that transported birds were offered food and water, and
information about the sender.
These information collection activity requirements provide APHIS
with the data necessary for the review and evaluation of program
compliance by regulated facilities, and they provide a workable
enforcement system to carry out the requirements of the AWA and the
intent of Congress.
APHIS expects to solicit feedback from a variety of respondents
affected by this proposed rule. They might request and submit licensure
or registration packets or other documentation, and include private
hobbyists; breeders and other for-profit businesses and farms; not-for-
profit institutions such as foundations, refuges, zoos, rehabilitation
facilities, as well as educational institutions; and State, local, or
Tribal authorities partnering with USDA to enforce these regulations.
For wage calculations reported in the information collection request,
APHIS used the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and
Wage Statistics to estimate wages, specifically those for government
animal health officials, ranchers (SOCC 11-9013), caretakers (SOCC 39-
2021), transporters (SOCC 53-7199), and individuals (SOCC 00-0000).
More information can be found in the information collection request
supporting statement.
We are soliciting comments from the public concerning our proposed
information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments
will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Respondents: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-
profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; farms; and State, local,
and Tribal governments.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 6,268.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 24.
Estimated annual number of responses: 150,685.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 128,298 hours. (Due
to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product
of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden
per response.)
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> website or in our reading room. (A link to
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule.) Information about the information collection
process may be obtained from Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork
Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483. APHIS will respond to any
information collection-related comments in the final rule. All comments
will also become a matter of public record.
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. APHIS estimates that 10 percent of the total responses
can be processed electronically. Most of the activities that require
forms also require original signatures or the completed forms must
accompany the animals they were prepared for; processing them
electronically is not feasible. APHIS is working towards making
required forms available as fillable PDF format. Certification,
accreditation, registration, permits, and other licensing activities
and processes currently can be uploaded into DocuSign or eFile
information systems, or emailed. Respondents are free to maintain
required records as best suited for their organization. Details about
specific forms for reportable activities can be found in the
information collection request supporting statement.
For assistance with E-Government Act compliance related to this
proposed rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork
Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483, or the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Parts 1 and 2
Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
9 CFR Part 3
Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3 as
follows:
PART 1--DEFINITION OF TERMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
0
2. Section 1.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Bird'' and
``Bred for use in research'';
0
b. By revising the definitions of ``Carrier'', ``Exhibitor'', ``Farm
animal'', ``Intermediate handler'', and ``Pet animal'';
0
c. By adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for ``Poultry''; and
0
d. By revising the definitions of ``Retail pet store'' and ``Weaned''.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Bird means any member of the class Aves (excluding eggs).
[[Page 9905]]
Bred for use in research means an animal that is bred in captivity
and is being used or is intended for use for research, teaching,
testing, or experimentation purposes.
* * * * *
Carrier means the operator of any airline, railroad, motor carrier,
shipping line, or other enterprise which is engaged in the business of
transporting any animals for hire. Except anyone transporting a
migratory bird covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from the
wild to a facility for rehabilitation and eventual release in the wild,
or between rehabilitation facilities, and has obtained authorization
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for that purpose, is not a
``carrier''.
* * * * *
Exhibitor means any person (public or private) exhibiting any
animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution
of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for
compensation, as determined by the Secretary. This term includes
carnivals, circuses, animal acts (including free-flighted bird shows),
zoos, and educational exhibits, exhibiting such animals whether
operated for profit or not. This term excludes retail pet stores,
horse, dog, and pigeon races, an owner of a common, domesticated
household pet who derives less than a substantial portion of income
from a nonprimary source (as determined by the Secretary) for
exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the
pet owner, organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in
State and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, field trials,
coursing events, purebred dog and cat shows, bird fancier shows, and
any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts
and sciences, as may be determined by the Secretary.
* * * * *
Farm animal means any domestic species of cattle, sheep, swine,
goats, llamas, horses, or poultry, which are normally and have
historically been kept and raised on farms in the United States and
used or intended for use as food or fiber, or for improving animal
nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for
improving the quality of food or fiber. This term also includes animals
such as rabbits, mink, chinchilla, and ratites when they are used
solely for purposes of meat, fur, feathers, or skins, and animals such
as horses and llamas when used solely as work and pack animals.
* * * * *
Intermediate handler means any person, including a department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States or of any State or
local government (other than a dealer, research facility, exhibitor,
any person excluded from the definition of a dealer, research facility,
or exhibitor, an operator of an auction sale, or a carrier), who is
engaged in any business in which he receives custody of animals in
connection with their transportation in commerce. Except anyone
transporting a migratory bird covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act from the wild to a facility for rehabilitation and eventual release
in the wild, or between rehabilitation facilities, and has obtained
authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for that purpose,
is not an ``intermediate handler''.
* * * * *
Pet animal means any animal that has commonly been kept as a pet in
family households in the United States, such as dogs, cats, guinea
pigs, rabbits, hamsters, and birds. This term also includes but is not
limited to such birds as parrots, canaries, cockatiels, lovebirds, and
budgerigar parakeets. This term excludes exotic animals and wild
animals.
* * * * *
Poultry means any species of chickens, turkeys, swans, partridges,
guinea fowl, and pea fowl; ducks, geese, pigeons, and doves; grouse,
pheasants, and quail.
* * * * *
Retail pet store means a place of business or residence at which
the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically
present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to
purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase, and
where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale, at
retail, for use as pets: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters,
gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchillas, domesticated ferrets,
domesticated farm-type animals, birds, and coldblooded species. Such
definition excludes--
(1) Establishments or persons who deal in dogs used for hunting,
security, or breeding purposes;
(2) Establishments or persons exhibiting, selling, or offering to
exhibit or sell any wild or exotic or other nonpet species of
warmblooded animals such as skunks, raccoons, nonhuman primates,
squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes, etc.;
(3) Any establishment or person selling warmblooded animals (except
laboratory rats and mice) for research or exhibition purposes;
(4) Any establishment wholesaling any animals (except rats and
mice); and
(5) Any establishment exhibiting pet animals in a room that is
separate from or adjacent to the retail pet store, or in an outside
area, or anywhere off the retail pet store premises.
* * * * *
Weaned means that a mammal has become accustomed to take solid food
and has so done, without nursing, for a period of at least 5
consecutive days; or that a bird has become accustomed to take food and
has so done, without supplemental feeding from a parent or human
caretaker, for a period of at least 5 consecutive days. Signs that an
animal has become accustomed to take food include the animal's ability
to maintain a constant body weight during those 5 days.
* * * * *
PART 2--REGULATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
0
4. Section 2.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(3)(vi), by adding ``, feathers,'' after the word
``food''; and
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing the words ``subparts A through
F'' in the first sentence and adding the words ``subparts A through G''
in their place and revising the last sentence.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 2.1 Requirements and application.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * * A licensee must obtain a new license before using any
animal beyond those types or numbers of animals authorized under the
existing license. Notwithstanding these provisions, a licensee in
possession of birds on [Effective date of final rule], may continue to
operate under that license until its scheduled expiration date. APHIS
encourages such persons to apply for a new license at least 90 days
before expiration of the current one.
* * * * *
Sec. 2.31 [Amended]
0
5. In Sec. 2.31, paragraph (d)(1)(ix) is amended as follows:
0
a. In the third sentence, by removing the word ``non-rodents'' and
adding the words ``animals, other than rodents and birds,'' in its
place; and
0
b. In the fourth sentence, by adding the words ``and birds'' after the
word ``rodents''.
0
6. In Sec. 2.50, paragraph (e) is amended as follows:
[[Page 9906]]
0
a. By redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (e)(3) and
(4), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (e)(2); and
0
b. In newly redesignated paragraph (e)(3) introductory text, by
removing the words ``dogs or cats'' and adding the words ``dogs, cats,
or birds'' in their place.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 2.50 Time and method of identification.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) When one or more birds are confined in a primary enclosure, the
bird shall be identified by:
(i) A label attached to the primary enclosure which shall bear a
description of the birds in the primary enclosure, including:
(A) The number of birds;
(B) The species of the birds;
(C) Any distinctive physical features of the birds; and
(D) Any identifying marks on the birds; or
(ii) A leg or wing band applied to each bird in the primary
enclosure by the dealer or exhibitor that individually identifies each
bird by description or number; or
(iii) A transponder (microchip) placed in a standard anatomical
location for the species in accordance with professionally accepted
standards, provided that the receiving facility has a compatible
transponder (microchip) reader that is capable of reading the
transponder (microchip) and that the reader is readily available for
use by an APHIS official and/or facility employee accompanying the
APHIS official.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 2.75, paragraph (b)(1) introductory text is amended by
revising the last sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 2.75 Records: Dealers and exhibitors.
* * * * *
(b)(1) * * * The records shall include any offspring born or
hatched of any animal while in his or her possession or under his or
her control.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 2.76, paragraph (a)(7) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.76 Records: Operators of auction sales and brokers.
(a) * * *
(7) A description of the animal which shall include:
(i) The species and the breed or type of animal;
(ii) The sex of the animal; or if the animal is a bird, only if the
sex is readily determinable;
(iii) The date of birth or hatch date; or, if unknown, the
approximate age or developmental stage; and
(iv) The color and any distinctive markings; and
* * * * *
PART 3--STANDARDS
0
9. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
0
10. The heading for subpart F is revised to read as follows:
Subpart F--Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment,
and Transportation of Warmblooded Animals Other Than Dogs, Cats,
Rabbits, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Nonhuman Primates, Marine Mammals,
and Birds
0
11. Subpart G, consisting of Sec. Sec. 3.150 through 3.168, is added
to read as follows:
Subpart G--Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment,
and Transportation of Birds
Sec.
Facilities and Operating Standards
3.150 Facilities, general.
3.151 Facilities, indoor.
3.152 Facilities, outdoor.
3.153 Primary enclosures.
3.154 Environmental enhancement to promote psychological well-being.
Animal Health and Husbandry Standards
3.155 Feeding.
3.156 Watering.
3.157 Water quality.
3.158 Cleaning, sanitization, housekeeping, and pest control.
3.159 Employees.
3.160 Compatibility and separation.
Transportation Standards
3.161 Consignments to carriers and intermediate handlers.
3.162 Primary enclosures used to transport live birds.
3.163 Primary conveyances (motor vehicle, rail, air, and marine).
3.164 Food and water requirements.
3.165 Care in transit.
3.166 Terminal facilities.
3.167 Handling.
3.168 Climate and environmental conditions during transportation.
Subpart G--Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment,
and Transportation of Birds
Facilities and Operating Standards
Sec. 3.150 Facilities, general.
(a) Structure; construction. Housing facilities for birds must be
designed and constructed so that they are structurally sound for the
species of bird housed in them. They must be kept in good repair,
protect the birds from injury, and restrict other animals from
entering. Housing facilities must employ security measures that contain
all birds securely. Such measures may include safety doors, entry/exit
doors to the primary enclosure that are double-door, or other
equivalent systems desig
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on February 22, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.