Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PPD-PAD

Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis

Proposed Rule: Contingency Plans for the Handling of Animals

Docket Number: APHIS 2006-00159

October 2008

Contingency Plans for the Handling of Animals

[Introduction]{.underline}

The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966 and has since been
amended four times (1970, 1976, 1985, and 1990). The original intention
of the Act was to regulate the care and use of animals in the
laboratory. Over the years, it has evolved into the only Federal law in
the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research,
exhibition, transport, and use by dealers. There are other laws,
policies, and guidelines that may include additional species coverage or
specifications for animal care and use. However, the Animal Welfare Act
is the minimum acceptable standard that regulates animal care and use in
the U.S. The Act regulates the treatment of live or dead dogs, cats,
nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, or any warm-blooded
animals that are used or are intended for use in research, teaching,
testing, experimentation, for exhibition purposes, or as pets.

Businesses and organizations that buy and/or sell warm-blooded animals,
exhibit them to the public, transport animals commercially, or use
animals in experiments or as teaching tools must be licensed or
registered by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). Businesses or
organizations that grow, buy, or sell animals for food and fiber, and
those that use fish and other cold-blooded animals are exempt by law.
Those facilities that use rats, mice, or birds that are bred for use in
research are exempt by the act.

While the Animal Welfare Act mandates contingency plans for marine
mammals, there are no contingency plan requirements for other animals
covered under the Act. Under 9 CFR § 3.101(b), facilities housing marine
mammals must provide reliable and adequate sources of water and electric
power. In addition, the facilities are required to submit contingency
plans regarding emergency sources of water and electric power for
approval to the Deputy Administrator of Animal Care, USDA-APHIS.
Contingency plans must incorporate evacuation procedures in the event of
a disaster and a description of backup systems and or arrangements for
relocating marine mammals requiring artificially cooled or heated water.

The World Health Organization categorizes disasters as either natural or
manmade. Natural disasters are the result of natural phenomena and
account for 80 percent of all disasters around the world (Sen and
Chander 2003). Manmade disasters on the other hand occur as a result of
man's intervention or non-intervention. Lack of preparedness can leave
businesses and organizations and the animals in their care vulnerable,
as was the case in the southern United States in 2005. The hurricane
season's devastating impact that year on southern States underscores the
need for contingency planning for the handling of all animals,
particularly those regulated by APHIS and protected under the Animal
Welfare Act. Over 50,000 pets were stranded and many died during the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (The Christian Science Monitor July 21,
2006). While APHIS does not know how many animals in research facilities
or other licensed and registered facilities were stranded or died during
Hurricane Katrina, the large number of pets negatively impacted during
this particular natural disaster is an indication that the devastation
suffered was perhaps even greater for regulated animals. This is due to
the difference in scale between the number of animals for which pet
owners are responsible versus the number of animals for which research
facilities and other licensed and registered facilities are responsible.
With no contingency plan in place, it is reasonable to believe that AWA
licensees and registrants would find it difficult to evacuate or
otherwise ensure the safety of a large number of animals. Currently,
there are no estimates of the total number of animals that perished in
research and other facilities because of Hurricane Katrina. In one
instance, after facility personnel were evacuated, authorities were not
notified for 10 days that animals had been abandoned. By that time,
approximately 90 percent of the animals either died or had to be
humanely euthanized. This was one of many tragic outcomes that could
have been prevented if the facility had had a contingency plan in place.

Other natural disasters have also had devastating impacts on businesses
or organizations and on the animals in their care. In the wake of
Tropical Storm Allison, in 2001, 4,700 research animals at the
University of Texas in Houston, valued at \$7.4 million, were killed.
Animal-based sponsored research was delayed for approximately 18 months,
at a cost of \$105 million (LAMA Disaster Preparedness Resource). Since
this incident, the University of Texas at Houston has implemented
contingency planning to avoid a repeat of such losses.

In 2004, USDA's Animal Care reported 1,101,958 animals, including dogs,
cats, guinea pigs, nonhuman primates, hamsters, and rabbits, were used
by registered research facilities
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml).
This high number of animals used by research facilities illustrates the
need for contingency plans to protect animals and mitigate impacts of
natural and manmade disasters.

In accordance with requirements of the Office of Management and Budget
for significant rulemaking, we examine in this document expected
economic impacts of the proposed rule. We also consider effects for
small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
following section presents the proposed rule and contingency plan
components. Expected benefits and costs of the rule for the licensees
and registrants are then evaluated, including an alternative to the rule
that APHIS considered. Lastly, we present an initial regulatory impact
analysis for the proposed rule.

[Proposed Rule and Contingency Plan Components]{.underline}

The proposed rule would amend the current regulations and would require
all licensees and registrants, which include research facilities,
dealers, exhibitors, intermediate handlers, and carriers, to develop and
document contingency plans for the handling of animals during all
emergencies. The contingency plans should identify common emergencies
such as electrical outages, faulty HVAC systems, fires, and animal
escapes, as well as natural disasters the facility is most likely to
experience.

Because contingency planning is already a requirement for marine mammal
facilities, there is a wealth of information available from various
Federal and State agencies and private organizations that addresses
animal disaster planning. In addition, since Hurricane Katrina there has
been heightened awareness of the need to plan for disasters. As a
result, many Federal, State, and private organizations have developed
guidelines for handling animals during emergencies. A list of resources
that may aid in the development and implementation of contingency plans
is presented in Table 1.

Because the regulated entities are in various industry classification
categories, it is difficult to develop a standard contingency plan.
However, key elements of the plan should be disaster mitigation,
preparedness, response, and recovery (FEMA 1998). Organizations and/or
businesses should identify agencies, Federal and State, that are
associated with specific disaster mitigation. Mitigation includes any
activities that prevent an emergency, reduce the chances of an
emergency, or reduce the damaging effects of unavoidable emergencies.
Preparedness includes plans and preparations made to save lives and to
assist in response and recovery. Response refers to actions taken to
save lives and prevent further property damage during an emergency
situation. Recovery includes actions taken to return to a normal or
safer situation following an emergency. It is important that all
potential emergencies be addressed no matter how remote the possibility
of the emergency arising. Specifically, sources of water and food,
backup systems in the event of power outages or faulty HVAC systems,
means of evacuation in the event of fire and floods, and recapture
procedures in the case of escape should be considered.

**Table 1: List of Available Sources on Disaster Planning and
Management**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Books and Articles]{.underline}**

  Dorn, C. Richard. "Veterinary Service and Animal Care Emergency Operations Plans." [Journal of American Veterinary
  Medical Association]{.underline}. 1 Oct. 1993.

  Heath, Sebastian E. [Animal Management in Disasters]{.underline}. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc., 1999.

  Russell, Ray L. "Business Aspects of Disaster Planning and Recovery." [Journal of American Veterinary Medical
  Association]{.underline}. 1 Oct. 1993.

  Vogelweid, C. M. "Developing Emergency Management Plans for University Laboratory Animal Programs and Facilities."
  [Contemporary Topics of Laboratory Animal Science.]{.underline} Sept. 1998.

  **[Example Checklists]{.underline}**

  *ARENA/ OLAW:* [Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee Guidebook;]{.underline} 2^nd^ edition, 2002 (Excerpt \~
  Emergency Preparedness- Section B.6) - pages 71-81 \<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guidebook_excerpt.doc\>

  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). "Animal Disaster Plan Worksheet for Planners and Emergency Managers."
  21 Mar. 2006. \<http://www.fema.gov/emergency/managers/dispws\>

  **[Useful Websites]{.underline}**

  American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). [Disaster Preparedness Response Guide]{.underline}. 2007.
  http://www.avma.org/disaster/

  FEMA Independent Study Program. Animals in Disaster. Module A (IS-10) and Module B (IS-11). May 1998.
  \<http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/crslist.asp\>

  Humane Society of the United States. "Disaster Planning." Disaster Services, 2000.
  \<http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/resources/hsus_disaster_planning_manual_for_animals.html\>

  Information Resources for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. "Disaster Planning." AWIC Resource Series
  No. 7. 28 June 2001. (Published by USDA - ARS, APHIS, NAL, Tim Allen M.S., ed.)
  \<http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/IACUC/iacuc.htm\>

  Louisiana State University Emergency Animal Shelter. [Disaster Response Manual]{.underline}. 2006. Complied by
  Susan K. Mikota DVM \<http://lsuemergencyanimalshelter.org/index.htm\>

  National Institutes of Health. Office of Extramural Research. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Disaster
  Planning and Response Resources. 22 March 2006. \<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/disaster_planning.htm\>

  New South Wales Agriculture. [Emergency Procedures]{.underline}. Animal Research Review Panel Policy 10. Animal
  Welfare Inspectorial Office. 30 Nov. 2006.
  \<http://www.animalethics.org.au/reader/info-accred-establish/arrp-emergency-procedures.htm\>

  University of California. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Veterinary Medicine Extension. [DANR
  Guide to Disaster Preparedness]{.underline}. 1999. \<http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DI_DANRGuide.html\>

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

There are several sources available that provide useful information for
the development of contingency plans. The APHIS web site provides links
to animal disaster planning and training and is linked to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. FEMA provides two training modules on
disaster planning. The first, geared toward animal owners and
caretakers, is designed to heighten awareness of emergency planning. The
second is geared toward emergency management officials and largely
entails community planning for disasters. Both training modules provide
online courses that may be downloaded and printed for ease of use. In
addition, the American Veterinary Medical Association provides a
disaster preparedness and response guide which is available online.
Presented below are some suggested general steps that should be taken by
facilities in the development of contingency plans.

I.  Evaluation of facility contingency planning needs

    a.  Identify possible disasters (extent and type)

    b.  Identify agencies and organizations associated with specific
        disaster mitigation

    c.  Assess building structures

    d.  Map the area and post the map

II. Development of the emergency plan---continuous planning and employee
    training/drills

    a.  Form a response team---emergency organization (direction and
        control)

    b.  Prioritize response activities

    c.  Identify and list resources

        i.  Supplies

        ii. Assistance

    d.  Communication resources

    e.  Animal identification and tracking

    f.  Transportation (caging, equipment) services

    g.  Alternate facility location

    h.  Documentation and vital record keeping/preservation

III. Response and recovery

     a.  Cautionary check of the surroundings

     b.  Familiarization with insurance policy and sources of financial
         assistance

     c.  Repair costs

     d.  Evaluation of response actions

     e.  Re-evaluation of mitigation measures

Specific Facility Considerations

While many key components of these steps involved in developing a
disaster plan are similar, exhibitors and zoos, research facilities and
veterinary businesses, private dealers and carriers, all have different
elements to consider. The emphasis should be on mitigation, that is,
prevention of loss of life, human and animal, and minimizing of the
other impacts of disasters. Presented below are a few key elements that
specific types of businesses or organizations should consider.

*Exhibitors/Zoos.* An additional component in the preparation of
contingency plans for these facilities should be transport options. Zoos
house sizable animals that require special transport equipment. Food and
water requirements if an evacuation should occur are critical in
disaster planning. Because the majority of zoo animals are exotic and
could cause harm to humans if not confined, special consideration should
be given to securing these animals and training employees to handle them
in the case of a disaster. Additional disaster training would complement
the training already required for handlers of exotic animals.

*Research Facilities.* Research facilities comprise 10 percent of
licensees and registrants and largely include college and pharmaceutical
facilities. These facilities have in the past proven to be extremely
vulnerable during disasters, which can cause enormous damage in terms of
research time and funding. Research facilities should ensure a good
communication system is in place in the event of personnel evacuation.
Disaster mitigation agencies should be informed to ensure animals are
cared for after evacuation. Special attention should be given to
mitigating the impact of common emergencies such as HVAC failures and
power failures.

*Carriers/Dealers (Private Businesses).* Private companies are also
susceptible to both manmade and natural disasters. These businesses in
particular should ensure that there is appropriate insurance coverage
and a comprehensive evacuation plan for the animals. Data and record
tracking is another key component in maintaining animal health and
safety during the recovery phase. In a study of business disruption
after an earthquake in Iowa, 50 percent of the businesses reported
extensive damage, with average costs of approximately \$50,000, while 15
percent reported moderate damage costing on average \$28,000. These
losses underscore the need for financial preparedness during disasters
(www.animaldisasters.com), a key component for these industries.

[Expected Benefits and Costs of the Rule]{.underline}

A disaster not only results in economic losses, but can also present
public health and environmental challenges. Contingency planning can
alleviate the impact of catastrophic and common disasters and prevent
often tragic outcomes. Although not yet mandatory, many of the over
10,000 licensees and registrants, particularly those involved in
research, zoos, and conservation activities, have already developed and
implemented contingency planning. In addition, many communities have
coordinated efforts and emergency operation plans with State and Federal
agencies to handle animals during both catastrophic and common
emergencies.

While it is difficult to quantify the benefits of contingency planning,
they are numerous. First, contingency planning can prevent loss of
animal life and the resulting undisposed carcasses that can pose a
threat to public health. Second, loss of valuable research resources and
income can be prevented with contingency planning. Third, having a
contingency plans can reduce the time of recovery from disasters and
thus provide cost savings to the affected businesses and organizations.
Finally, required contingency planning would reassure the general public
that facilities must have measures in place to protect the animals in
times of catastrophic and common emergencies.

The costs of developing contingency plans are expected to vary by the
type and size of businesses. It would be necessary for businesses
dealing with larger and more exotic animals to have more detailed
contingency planning. Businesses dealing with smaller and non-exotic
animals would require less time in documenting and developing the plans.
Because many of the licensees and registrants already have contingency
plans in place, the overall economic impact of the proposed rule on
businesses is not expected to be significant. APHIS estimates that it
will take an average of 4 to 6 hours to develop and document a
contingency plan. This estimate is based on the time required to
identify resources for the plan's preparation and documentation. APHIS
invites public comment on the expected amount of time required to
develop and document contingency plans.

Other costs involved in contingency planning are record keeping,
ensuring that the contingency plans are kept current, and employee
training. These costs are expected to vary by type and size of business,
and the type of animals. Many organizations offer training courses on
general disaster planning specific to the type of animals. FEMA offers
free training, while some organizations such as the United Animals
Nation, the American Red Cross and the American Humane Society offer
courses with prices ranging from \$50 to \$300. These courses cover the
development and implementation of contingency plans. The type of
training required would be specific to the organization or business.
Information is not available on the costs of record keeping and
personnel employee training involved in animal contingency planning as
pertains to specific business and organizations. APHIS invites public
comment on the costs that may be incurred in training personnel as part
of the contingency planning.

In terms of the infrastructure that may be required, we do not have any
estimates of the costs of implementing contingency plans for facilities
that do not already have contingency plans in place, such as the costs
of equipment or materials that may be needed. We expect that many of the
facilities will already have plans in place and as a result will have
emergency equipment such as generators. These facilities will not incur
additional costs, as they will not have to make investments in these
items. Facilities that do not have these items in place will incur
additional costs. However, there are no estimates available for costs
such as investing in new equipment. We welcome public comment on the
types of equipment or materials that may be needed to implement
contingency plans and the costs of this equipment or materials.

An alternative to the proposed rule would be to require that all
licensees and registrants submit the contingency plans that they develop
to APHIS for review, as is already required of marine mammal facilities.
As there are over 10,000 licensees and registrants, APHIS believes that
this alternative would be unduly costly and time prohibitive. Moreover,
APHIS will have access, upon request under the proposed rule, to the
contingency plan of any affected facility. Thus, the proposed rule,
which would not require Agency review of the contingency plans, is
preferred.

[Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law
96-354), this analysis considers the economic impact of the proposed
rule on small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires that the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) be made available for public
comments. This section addresses the IRFA requirements, as stated in
Sections 603 (b) and 603(c) of the Act.

Reasons Action is being Considered

APHIS is taking action to improve the handling of animals during
catastrophic disasters and in common emergencies such as electrical
failures, HVAC system failures, and animal escapes. The impacts of
recent disasters in the United States have been devastating and the
outcome for animals often has been tragic. Although the well-being of
many animals is protected in various ways under the Animal Welfare Act,
contingency planning is currently only required for marine mammals. The
proposed rule would require research facilities, dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers, to develop and document contingency
plans that include evacuation, relocation, recapture, and back-up
systems. In addition, the employees of all licensees and registrants
would be familiar with the contingency plans via employer-based
training. Finally, while APHIS would not require the submission of the
contingency plans, the plans would be available for review by APHIS upon
request. Facility owners would be responsible for updating the
contingency plans. Contingency planning could prevent devastating
impacts of disasters both for the animals and the regulated entities.

Objective and Legal Basis for the Rule

The objective of the rule is to require contingency planning for animals
besides marine mammals that are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act.
The legal basis for this action is the Animal Welfare Act.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Regulated

The proposed rule may affect research facilities, dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers that fall into nine categories of
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). For the
purpose of this analysis and following the Small Business Administration
(SBA) guidelines, the potentially affected entities are classified
within the following industries: All Other Animal Production (NAICS
112990), Pet and Pet Supplies Stores (NAICS 453910),[^1] Schedule
Freight Transport (NAICS 48112), Research and Development in Physical
Engineering and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710), Veterinary Services (NAICS
541940), Zoos and Botanical Gardens (NAICS 712130), Nature Park and
Other Similar Institutions (NAICS 712190), Environment Conservation and
Wildlife Organizations (NAICS 813312), and Pet Care Services (NAICS
812910).

Establishments in the category of All Other Animal Production (NAICS
112990) are considered small by SBA standards if annual sales are not
more than \$0.75 million. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture,
97 percent of the farming businesses are considered small.[^2]
Establishments in the category Research and Development in Physical
Engineering and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710) are considered small if
they employ not more than 500 employees, and for this category 82
percent of the businesses are considered small. Establishments in the
category Schedule Freight Transport (NAICS 48112) are considered small
if they employ not more than 1,500 employees, and 99 percent of the
businesses in this category are considered small.

All of the other establishments outlined above are considered small if
annual sales are not more than \$6.5 million. The following percentages
of entities are considered small by SBA standards: 97 percent of Pet and
Pet Supplies Stores (NAICS 453910); 99 percent of Veterinary Services
(NAICS 541940) and Nature Park and Other Similar Institutions (NAICS
712190); 83 percent of Zoos and Botanical Gardens (NAICS 712130); 91
percent of Environment Conservation and Wildlife Organizations (NAICS
813312); and 97 percent of Pet Care Services (NAICS 812910).

There are approximately 10,351 licensees and registrants (4,975 Class A
licensees (breeders), 1,109 Class B licensees (wholesale dealers), 2,660
licensed and registered exhibitors, 1,123 registered research
facilities, and 484 registered transport carriers and handlers) that
fall under the various industry classifications. Breeders comprise 48
percent, followed by exhibitors at 25 percent, and dealers and research
facilities make up 11 percent each. While no economic data are available
on business size for the specific entities, we may assume the majority
of the establishments are small, based on the industry estimates
obtained from the Economic Census and the Census of Agriculture.

Based on information available to APHIS, it is expected that the
licensees and registrants would incur minimal costs to develop and
document contingency plans. There is no economic data available
pertaining to employee training and overall we do not anticipate any
substantial economic impact on the affected entities. One of the major
benefits of contingency planning is the mitigation of loss of animals in
a disaster, which can have devastating economic impacts. In addition,
contingency planning would mitigate the suffering that animals may
undergo while awaiting rescue and would thereby more fully ensure the
welfare of the animals. Another benefit would be improved public safety;
in the event that dangerous animals escape, contingency planning would
provide for expeditious capture of these animals, thus lessening the
risk of harm to humans. APHIS welcomes comments on the potential effects
of the proposed rule for the regulated businesses and organizations.

Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirement

The proposed rule is expected to result in minimal increases in
compliance costs, due to the additional requirements of developing and
documenting contingency plans, and training of employees to carry out
the plans. It is estimated that approximately 5 hours would be required
to develop the contingency plans.[^3] Estimates of the costs of employee
training are not available to APHIS, but it is expected that the
training costs would vary depending on the type and size of the business
(see section Expected Benefits and Costs of the Rule).

Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations

APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the
proposed rule with other federal rules. However, OSHA requires that
businesses that employ more than 10 people develop disaster plans. These
plans are geared towards preventing loss of human life. However, many of
the affected entities may incorporate animal contingency planning with
existing OSHA disaster plans, and this rule would complement OSHA's
regulations in such instances.

Significant Alternatives to the Rule

One alternative to the rule would be to require that all licensees and
registrants submit their contingency plans to APHIS for review, as is
required for the marine mammal facilities. As there are over 10,000
licensees and registrants, this alternative would be costly and time
prohibitive for the Agency. Moreover, APHIS will have access, upon
request under the proposed rule, to the contingency plan of any affected
facility. Another alternative would be the status quo. However, this
alternative would not provide adequate protection for the general public
and the animals in these facilities. Thus, the proposed rule, which
would not require the Agency's review and approval of contingency plans,
is preferred.

[Summary]{.underline}

Preparedness for disasters can reduce harm caused to animals and loss of
life. The devastating impact of the 2005 hurricane season underscores
the need for contingency planning for all animals covered under the
Animal Welfare Act. Currently, only facilities that house marine mammals
are required under 9 CFR § 3.101 to develop contingency plans. The
proposed rule would require that all licensees and registrants develop
and document contingency plans for all other animals covered under the
Act. In addition, training and familiarization with these plans would be
provided to all facility employees. The licensees and registrants fall
into various categories of the North American Industry Classification
System and while no economic data are available on business size for the
specific entities, we may assume the majority of the establishments are
small, based on the industry estimates obtained from the Economic Census
and the Census of Agriculture. In terms of economic impacts, we
anticipate that the proposed rule would only impose minimal costs to
develop and document the contingency plans and provide employee
training. The cost of training for facility personnel is expected to
vary depending on the type and size of business. Many of the larger
facilities, in particular, already have contingency plans in place. We
do not have any estimates of the costs of implementing contingency plans
for facilities that do not already have contingency plans in place, such
as the costs of equipment or materials that may be needed. We expect
that many of the facilities will already have plans in place and as a
result will have emergency equipment such as generators.

Overall, we do not anticipate a substantial economic impact on the
entities affected. Nevertheless, APHIS welcomes public comment on the
proposed rule's possible impacts.

References

Animals in Research, 2006,
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/publications_and_reports.shtml

Census of Agriculture, 2002,
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp

Economic Census, 2002, http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/

LAMA Disaster Preparedness Resource, www.lama-online.org

Sen, A. and M. Chander, Disaster Management in India: the Case of
Livestock and Poultry." Review of Science and Technology 22(3), 915-930

Small Business Administration. *A Guide for Government Agencies How to
Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/regflex.html*

Small Business Administration. *Small Business Standard Match to North
American Industry Classification System
http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html*

[^1]: Businesses are included in this category if they deal in exotic
    pets such as primates.

[^2]: This percentage is for all farming businesses in the United States
    including businesses classified within NAICS 112990.

[^3]: This estimate is based on the time required to utilize the
    available resources such as FEMA's website to develop and document
    contingency plans. FEMA's website contains contingency plans.