Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 16593 

animal identification, recordkeeping, 

access for inspection, confiscation of 

animals, and handling, among other 

requirements. Within part 2, subpart C 

contains the regulations specific to 

research facilities. 

Among other requirements, research 

facilities, other than Federal research 

facilities, must register with APHIS and 

appoint an Institutional Animal Care 

and Use Committee (IACUC). The 

IACUC, which must be composed of a 

chairperson and at least two other 

members, is required to perform certain 

functions in order to ensure the 

facility’s compliance with the AWA 

regulations. 

As one of these functions, the IACUC 

must review proposed activities 

involving animals that are performed at 

the facility, as well as significant 

changes in ongoing activities, in order to 

determine that the principle investigator 

has considered alternatives to 

procedures that may cause more than 

momentary or slight pain or distress to 

the animals, and has provided a written 

narrative description of the methods 

and sources used to determine that 

alternatives were not available. 

On October 30, 2013, APHIS received 

a petition from the Physicians 

Committee for Responsible Medicine 

(referred to below as PCRM) requesting 

that we initiate rulemaking to amend 

the AWA regulations. Specifically, 

PCRM asks that we amend part 1 to add 

a definition of the term alternatives in 

order to delineate what a primary 

investigator is required to consider in 

lieu of a procedure that may cause more 

than momentary or slight pain or 

distress to the animals. The petition also 

asks that we amend the existing 

definition of painful procedure in order 

to codify a long-standing APHIS policy 

that a procedure should be considered 

to be painful if it may cause more than 

momentary or slight pain of distress to 

the animals, even if this pain is 

subsequently relieved through 

anesthesia. Finally, the petition asks 

that we amend part 2 to specify what 

must occur as part of a consideration of 

alternatives. 

The petition states that the intent of 

the AWA is to authorize research 

facilities to undertake procedures likely 

to produce pain or distress in animals 

only if no alternatives exist to these 

procedures, and that the AWA 

regulations support this interpretation 

of the AWA itself. The petition suggests, 

however, that because of ambiguities in 

the AWA regulations, research facilities 

have sometimes construed them to 

mean that cursory deliberation 

regarding alternatives suffices to meet 

this regulatory and statutory 

requirement to consider alternatives. 

The petition states that, by amending 

the AWA regulations in the manner that 

PCRM suggests, we would remove these 

ambiguities and facilitate regulatory 

compliance. 

We are making this petition available 

to the public and soliciting comments to 

help determine what action, if any, to 

take in response to this request. The 

petition and any comments submitted 

are available for review as indicated 

under ADDRESSES above. We welcome 

all comments on the issues outlined in 

the petition. In particular, we invite 

responses to the following questions: 

1. Should APHIS establish regulatory 

standards for consideration of 

alternatives to procedures that may 

cause more than momentary or slight 

pain or distress to animals? 

2. What constitutes an alternative to a 

procedure that may cause more than 

momentary or slight pain or distress? If 

we amend the AWA regulations to 

define the term alternative, what 

definition should we use? 

3. What constitutes a thorough 

consideration of alternatives? Does this 

differ depending on the nature of the 

research conducted? If so, how? 

4. Who should make a determination 

regarding the thoroughness of a primary 

investigator’s consideration of 

alternatives: The IACUC for a facility, 

APHIS, or both parties? 

5. If the IACUC and APHIS should 

jointly make a determination, which 

responsibilities should fall to APHIS 

and which to the IACUC in terms of 

evaluating thoroughness? 

6. What documentation should the 

primary investigator provide to 

demonstrate that he or she has done a 

thorough consideration of alternatives? 

We encourage the submission of 

scientific data, studies, or research to 

support your comments and position. 

We also invite data on the costs and 

benefits associated with any 

recommendations. We will consider all 

comments and recommendations we 

receive. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.7. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

March 2015. 

Jere L. Dick, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07221 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86 

[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0018] 

RIN 0579–AE02 

Livestock Marketing Facilities 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our proposed rule 

that would amend the regulations 

governing approval of facilities that 

receive livestock moved in interstate 

commerce, as well as the conditions 

under which livestock may move to 

such facilities without official 

identification or prior issuance of an 

interstate certificate of veterinary 

inspection or alternative 

documentation. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on January 2, 

2015 (80 FR 6 through 13) is reopened. 

We will consider all comments that we 

receive on or before April 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2014–0018, 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 http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 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: Mr. 

Neil Hammerschmidt, Program 

Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851– 

3539. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1Messrs. Robert F. Bauer, Allen Dickerson, 

Benjamin L. Ginsberg, Donald F. McGahn II, 

Laurence E. Gold, Robert D. Lenhard, and Bradley 

A. Smith. 

Background 

On January 2, 2015, we published in 

the Federal Register (80 FR 6 through 

13, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0018) a 

proposal to amend the regulations in 9 

CFR subchapters B and C. 

We proposed to amend the 

regulations in part 51 of subchapter B 

and several parts of subchapter C to, 

among other things, replace references 

to ‘‘approved livestock facilities,’’ 

‘‘approved stockyards’’ and 

‘‘specifically approved stockyards’’ with 

the term ‘‘approved livestock marketing 

facilities.’’ 

We proposed to amend the 

regulations in § 71.20, which provide 

the conditions under which the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) of the United States 

Department of Agriculture may approve 

a livestock facility to receive livestock 

that are moved interstate under 

conditions that are afforded only to such 

approved facilities. The current 

regulations in that section require the 

person legally responsible for the dayto-day operations of the facility to 

execute an agreement with APHIS 

regarding the manner in which the 

facility will operate, if approved. The 

provisions of the agreement are 

currently set forth in the regulations. 

We proposed to remove the terms of 

the agreement from the regulations, and 

place them instead in a document titled 

‘‘The Approved Livestock Marketing 

Facility Agreement,’’ which we would 

maintain on the Internet. We also 

proposed to update the terms of the 

agreement and to make other 

amendments to § 71.20 that would 

update and clarify the section’s content. 

We proposed to revise § 86.4 in order 

to clarify the conditions under which 

cattle and bison may be moved 

interstate to an approved livestock 

marketing facility without official 

identification. We also proposed to 

revise § 86.5 in order to clarify the 

conditions under which cattle or bison 

may be moved interstate to an approved 

livestock facility without an 

accompanying interstate certificate of 

veterinary inspection or owner-shipper 

statement. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before 

March 3, 2015. We are reopening the 

comment period on Docket No. APHIS– 

2014–0018. The comment period will 

now close on April 15, 2015. We will 

also accept all comments received 

between March 4, 2015 (the day after 

the close of the original comment 

period) and the date of this notice. This 

action will allow interested persons 

additional time to prepare and submit 

comments. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

March 2015. 

Jere L. Dick, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07217 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 111 

[Notice 2015–05] 

Rulemaking Petition: Administrative 

Fines Program and Commission Forms 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Rulemaking Petition: Notice of 

availability. 

SUMMARY: On January 23, 2015, the 

Federal Election Commission received a 

Petition for Rulemaking asking the 

Commission to expand its 

Administrative Fines Program and to 

revise and update several Commission 

forms and their instructions. The 

Commission seeks comments on this 

petition. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before May 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: All comments must be in 

writing. Commenters are encouraged to 

submit comments electronically via the 

Commission’s Web site at http://

www.fec.gov/fosers, reference REG 

2015–01, or by email to 

FinesAndForms@fec.gov. Alternatively, 

commenters may submit comments in 

paper form, addressed to the Federal 

Election Commission, Attn.: Robert M. 

Knop, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20463. 

Each commenter must provide, at a 

minimum, his or her first name, last 

name, city, state, and zip code. All 

properly submitted comments, 

including attachments, will become part 

of the public record, and the 

Commission will make comments 

available for public viewing on the 

Commission’s Web site and in the 

Commission’s Public Records room. 

Accordingly, commenters should not 

provide in their comments any 

information that they do not wish to 

make public, such as a home street 

address, personal email address, date of 

birth, phone number, social security 

number, or driver’s license number, or 

any information that is restricted from 

disclosure, such as trade secrets or 

commercial or financial information 

that is privileged or confidential. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert M. Knop, Assistant General 

Counsel, Mr. Neven F. Stipanovic, 

Attorney, or Ms. Holly Ratliff, Office of 

General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 23, 2015, the Federal Election 

Commission received a Petition for 

Rulemaking from seven attorneys 1

(collectively ‘‘petitioners’’) regarding the 

Commission’s Administrative Fines 

Program (‘‘AFP’’) and several of the 

Commission’s forms and their 

accompanying instructions. Under the 

AFP, the Commission assesses civil 

monetary penalties for late filing and 

failure to file certain reports as required 

by 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

434(a)) (requiring political committee 

treasurers to report receipts and 

disbursements within certain time 

periods). 11 CFR 111.30; see also 52 

U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

437g(a)(4)(C)). If the Commission 

determines that such a violation has 

occurred, it may assess a civil monetary 

penalty according to the AFP penalty 

schedules at 11 CFR 111.43–.44. 

In December 2013, Congress 

authorized the Commission to expand 

the scope of the AFP to encompass 

reporting violations for reports filed 

under 52 U.S.C. 30104(c) (formerly 2 

U.S.C. 434(c)) (certain independent 

expenditure reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(e) 

(formerly 2 U.S.C. 434(e)) (certain 

federal election activity reports), 52 

U.S.C. 30104(f) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

434(f)) (electioneering communications 

reports), 52 U.S.C. 30104(g) (formerly 2 

U.S.C. 434(g)) (24- and 48-hour 

independent expenditure reports), 52 

U.S.C. 30104(i) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

434(i)) (bundled contribution reports), 

and 52 U.S.C. 30105 (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

437) (certain convention reports). See 

Public Law 113–72, 127 Stat. 1210 

(2013). The petitioners ask the 

Commission to conduct a rulemaking to 

expand the scope of the AFP to these 

additional categories of reporting 

violations, using an approach that 

considers the criteria in the penalty 

schedule found at 11 CFR 111.43 

(election sensitivity, level of activity, 

number of days late, and number of 

previous violations) and similar factors 

but eschews a strict formulaic penalty. 

The petitioners also ask the 

Commission to revise several of its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS