This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

55213 

Vol. 76, No. 173 

Wednesday, September 7, 2011 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT 

5 CFR Part 843 

RIN 3206–AM29 

Technical Amendments to Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System; 

Present Value Conversion Factors for 

Spouses of Deceased Separated 

Employees; Corrections 

AGENCY: Office of Personnel 

Management. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel 

Management published a final rule in 

the Federal Register on August 23, 

2011, (76 FR 52539) revising the factor 

at 5 CFR 843.309(b)(2) used to convert 

a lump sum basic employee death 

benefit under 5 U.S.C. 8442(b) to 36 

installment payments. That change 

inadvertently stated that the revised 

factor would apply to deaths occurring 

on or after October 1, 2004. The revised 

factor, however, applies to deaths 

occurring on or after October 1, 2011. 

Therefore, this document corrects the 

final regulation by revising this date. 

Additionally, this document corrects a 

misspelling in the heading to Appendix 

A to subpart C of part 843 that was 

included with the rule. 

DATES: Effective on September 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roxann Johnson, (202) 606–0299. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of Personnel Management published a 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

August 23, 2011, (76 FR 52539) that 

changed the factor at 5 CFR 

843.309(b)(2) used to convert a lump 

sum basic employee death benefit under 

5 U.S.C. 8442(b) to 36 installment 

payments. The rule inadvertently stated 

that the revised factor at 5 CFR 

843.309(b)(2) applies to deaths 

occurring on or after October 1, 2004. 

Section 843.309(b)(2) is being corrected 

to state that the revised factor applies 

when an employee’s death occurs on or 

after October 1, 2011. Additionally, the 

misspelling of the word, ‘‘deceased’’ is 

being corrected in the heading to 

Appendix A to subpart C of part 843. 

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 843 

Air traffic controllers, Disability 

benefits, Firefighters, Government 

employees, Law enforcement officers, 

Pensions, Retirement. 

Accordingly, 5 CFR part 843 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 843—FEDERAL EMPLOYEE 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM—DEATH 

BENEFITS AND EMPLOYEE REFUNDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 843 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8461; §§ 843.205, 

843.208, and § 843.209 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 8424; 843.309 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 8442; 843.406 also issued under 5 

U.S.C. 8441. 

Subpart C—Current and Former 

Spouse Benefits 

■ 2. Amend § 843.309 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 843.309 Basic employee death benefit. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) For deaths occurring on or after 

October 1, 2011, 36 equal monthly 

installments of 3.01643 percent of the 

amount of the basic employee death 

benefit. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise the Heading of Appendix A 

to subpart C of part 843 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 843— 

Present Value Conversion Factors for 

Earlier Commencing Date of Annuities 

of Current and Former Spouses of 

Deceased Separated Employees 

* * * * * 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John Panagakos, 

Manager, Retirement Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22873 Filed 9–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 88 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0168] 

RIN 0579–AC49 

Commercial Transportation of Equines 

to Slaughter 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations regarding the commercial 

transportation of equines to slaughter to 

add a definition of equine for slaughter 

and make other changes that will extend 

the protections afforded by the 

regulations to equines bound for 

slaughter but delivered first to an 

assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. 

This action will further ensure the 

humane treatment of such equines by 

helping to ensure that the unique and 

special needs of equines in commercial 

transportation to slaughter are met. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

P. Gary Egrie, Farm Animal Welfare 

Coordinator, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(301) 734–0695. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 88 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

contain minimum standards to ensure 

the humane movement of equines for 

slaughter via commercial transportation. 

The regulations cover, among other 

things, the food, water, and rest 

provided to such equines prior to their 

transportation to slaughter, standards 

for conveyances used to transport 

equines to slaughter, and certain 

paperwork required to accompany 

equines during such transportation. The 

regulations also require the owner/ 

shipper of the equines to take certain 

actions to ensure the safety and humane 

treatment of equines during loading and 

transportation for slaughter, including 

seeking immediate assistance from an 

equine veterinarian for any equine in 

obvious physical distress. In addition, 

the regulations prohibit the commercial 

transportation to slaughtering facilities 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
55214 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule, economic analysis, 

and the comments we received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0168. 

2The complete economic analysis is available on 

the regulations.gov Web site. See footnote 1 for 

directions on accessing the Web site. 

of equines considered to be unfit for 

travel, the use of electric prods on 

equines in commercial transportation to 

slaughter, and, after December 7, 2006, 

the use of double-deck trailers for 

commercial transportation of equines to 

slaughtering facilities. The regulations 

were issued pursuant to the provisions 

of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 

and Reform Act of 1996 (the Act), in 

which Congress, recognizing that 

equines being transported to slaughter 

have unique and special needs, 

authorized the Secretary of Agriculture 

to issue guidelines for the regulation of 

the commercial transportation of 

equines for slaughter by persons 

regularly engaged in that activity in the 

United States (see 7 U.S.C. 1901 note). 

On November 7, 2007, we published 

in the Federal Register (72 FR 62798– 

62802, Docket No. APHIS–2006–0168) a 

proposed rule 1 to amend the regulations 

by adding a definition of equine for 

slaughter and make other changes that 

would extend the protections afforded 

by the regulations to slaughter equines 

delivered first to an assembly point, 

feedlot, or stockyard. We proposed this 

action to further ensure the humane 

treatment of such equines by helping to 

ensure that the unique and special 

needs of equines in commercial 

transportation to slaughter are met. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending January 

7, 2008. We received 93 comments by 

that date. They were from private 

citizens, a State animal industry board, 

livestock industry associations, horse 

rescue organizations, animal welfare 

groups, and a foreign government. 

Thirty-five commenters supported the 

rule as proposed. Four commenters 

opposed the rule but did not address its 

specific provisions. The remaining 

commenters raised several issues 

relating to the proposed rule. These 

issues are discussed below. 

Several commenters opposed the rule 

because of the potential for negative 

economic impacts on those engaged in 

horse transport but did not discuss 

specific issues. One of these 

commenters expressed concern that 

these potential negative economic 

impacts could result in horse 

abandonment. 

We have prepared an analysis of the 

potential economic effects of the rule, as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. Based on that analysis, a summary 

of which is set forth below,2 we do not 

expect that this rule will have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. Similar concerns about horse 

abandonment were expressed when the 

regulations were first adopted in 2001, 

but horse abandonment did not increase 

significantly then, and therefore we do 

not anticipate that horse abandonment 

will increase as a result of this final 

rule. 

Seven commenters asked how the 

regulations would be enforced and 

expressed concern that enforcement will 

not be sufficiently aggressive. 

Enforcement is and will continue to 

be a cooperative effort between the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) and State officials. 

APHIS will take strong measures to 

ensure that the requirements of the 

regulations are met and violations 

prosecuted. 

Two commenters asked why, if the 

number of entities transporting equines 

to slaughter is under 100, APHIS did not 

work with them to gain voluntary 

compliance. 

APHIS has worked, and continues to 

work, with owner/shippers to gain 

compliance with the regulations. 

However, as a result of the closure of 

slaughter facilities that handle equines 

in the United States, there is an 

increased need to transport the equines 

to intermediate points before 

transporting them to slaughter facilities. 

Therefore the risk for those equines 

being treated inhumanely has increased 

as well. For reasons that are elaborated 

in the final regulatory flexibility 

analysis, we believe that most 

transporters to and from intermediate 

points are already in compliance with 

most or all of the rule’s requirements on 

a voluntary basis. However, we also 

need regulatory options to address the 

owner/shippers who have chosen not to 

transport them humanely. 

One commenter requested that the 

terms ‘‘assembly point,’’ ‘‘feedlot,’’ and 

‘‘stockyard’’ be defined in the 

regulations to improve clarity. 

We agree with the commenter and 

will add definitions for these terms to 

the regulations. Those terms are set 

forth in the regulatory text at the end of 

this document and are intended to be 

consistent with common industry and 

dictionary definitions of those terms as 

well as with the definitions established 

by the Grain Inspection, Packers, and 

Stockyards Administration in 9 CFR 

part 201. 

One commenter stated that the 

definition of ‘‘shipper’’ is too narrow 

and will exempt commercial shipments 

of equines to slaughter when those 

shipments are incidental to the primary 

activity of production agriculture. 

APHIS disagrees that the definition is 

too narrow. The definition specifies that 

for purposes of these regulations, 

‘‘production agriculture’’ means food or 

fiber production. Therefore, any entity 

that moves more than 20 equines to 

slaughter annually is subject to the 

regulations, regardless of that entity’s 

primary line of business. We did not 

propose to amend the definition of 

‘‘owner/shipper’’ already established in 

the regulations and are making no 

changes in response to this comment. 

Several commenters asked for changes 

to the definition for equine for 

slaughter. Some of these commenters 

stated that the term should exclude 

equines moving from premises of origin 

to a market or assembly point. Others 

asked that the definition be expanded to 

include equines moving to auctions 

specifically. 

These suggested modifications are not 

consistent with the definition in the 

Act. We are making no changes in 

response to these comments. 

One commenter stated that because 

there are no equine slaughter facilities 

in the United States at this time, the rule 

will not accomplish anything. 

The commenter is correct that there 

are currently no equine slaughter 

facilities in the United States, but 

equines are still being sent to slaughter 

in Mexico and Canada. These animals 

need protection on their way to the 

border. Furthermore, while some States 

have banned horse slaughter, not all 

have done so, and the possibility exists 

that slaughter facilities that handle 

equines may open in the future. 

Three commenters stated a certificate 

of veterinary inspection and a negative 

equine infectious anemia (EIA) test 

chart may not be reliable evidence that 

an equine is not for slaughter. 

We agree with the commenters, but 

note that there are other ways to tell if 

an equine is for slaughter; for example, 

horses come away from sales designated 

as slaughter animals on the bill of sale. 

We have never used the presence or 

absence of certificates of veterinary 

inspection or EIA test charts as the sole 

means of identifying slaughter equines. 

One commenter stated that the same 

penalties that apply to owner/shippers 

who falsify documents such as 

certificates of veterinary inspection and 

EIA test charts should also apply to 

veterinarians who provide falsified 

documents. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 55215 

3See, e.g., C.L. Stull, ‘‘Responses of Horses to 

Trailer Design, Duration, and Floor Area During 

Commercial Transportation to Slaughter,’’ J. Anim. 

Sci. 77:2925–2933; Temple Grandin, Livestock 

Handling and Transport (CABI, 2007), 257. 

APHIS notes that the same penalties 

already do apply to both owner/ 

shippers and veterinarians who provide 

falsified documents. 

One commenter stated that the 

regulations should be extended to 

prohibit the transport of heavily 

pregnant mares, and that owner/ 

shippers should be automatically 

considered in violation of the 

regulations if a mare gives birth in 

transit. 

APHIS notes that the regulations 

already provide these protections to 

heavily pregnant mares. The owner/ 

shipper certificate must include a 

statement of fitness to travel at the time 

of loading, which will indicate that the 

equine is able to bear weight on all four 

limbs, is able to walk unassisted, is not 

blind in both eyes, is older than 6 

months of age, and is not likely to give 

birth during the trip. These certificates 

are subject to review by a United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

representative and the USDA 

representative may direct the owner/ 

shipper to take appropriate actions to 

alleviate the suffering of any equine. 

One commenter stated that if an 

equine arrives at a slaughter facility or 

United States border crossing with an 

injury that should have prevented the 

equine from being transported, the 

owner/shipper should be found in 

violation of the regulations and subject 

to civil penalties. 

APHIS notes that this is already the 

case. As we described above in 

reference to heavily pregnant mares, the 

owner/shipper certificate must include 

a statement of fitness to travel, and these 

certificates are subject to review by 

USDA representatives, who may direct 

the owner/shipper to take appropriate 

action to alleviate the suffering of any 

equine. 

One commenter asked how APHIS 

defines inhumane treatment, and 

whether it was different for equines 

than for other livestock. Another 

commenter asked for elaboration as to 

why double-deck trailers specifically are 

considered a source of injury or 

discomfort to equines. 

For purposes of this regulation, 

APHIS considers inhumane treatment to 

mean actions that result in the infliction 

of pain, discomfort, or distress on 

equines for slaughter. There is a sizeable 

body of evidence, including studies in 

peer-reviewed journals, showing that 

significantly more equines are injured 

during transport in double-deck trailers 

than in single-deck trailers.3 Doubledeck trailers do not provide adequate 

headroom for adult equines, which may 

acquire cuts and abrasions on the tops 

of their heads. Because equines cannot 

stand in a normal position with their 

heads raised, they cannot maintain 

balance as easily and may suffer injuries 

from falling. In addition, ramps used to 

load animals onto double-deck trailers 

are at a relatively steep angle. While 

other species of animal, such as sheep, 

can maneuver the ramps without 

incident, equines frequently sustain 

injuries from being forced up and down 

the steep inclines. Because of their long 

legs and relatively high center of 

gravity, equines injure their withers and 

heads when they jump for the small 

opening at the top of a ramp leading out 

of a double-deck trailer. 

One commenter asked if APHIS had 

considered issuing more specific 

guidelines for trailer design 

specifications rather than banning 

double-deck trailers outright. 

As we explained above, there is a 

significant body of evidence indicating 

that many more equines are injured 

during transport in double-deck trailers 

than in single-deck trailers. The 

overpasses on most U.S. interstate 

highways are between 14- to 16-feet 

high. A tall equine can be 8 feet tall to 

the top of its head when standing on all 

four legs and close to 12 feet tall when 

rearing. Therefore, we believe that no 

conveyance is capable, under normal 

circumstances, of traversing most U.S. 

highways while carrying equines 

standing in a normal postural position 

on two or more stacked levels. 

Moreover, even if a route was chosen 

that did not involve passage under 

overpasses, a conveyance tall enough to 

transport equines standing in a normal 

postural position on two or more 

stacked levels would be extremely topheavy and prone to tipping. For these 

reasons we do not believe that equines 

can be safely and humanely transported 

on a conveyance that has an animal 

cargo space divided into two or more 

stacked levels. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed ban on electric prods is 

inappropriate without solid scientific 

evidence to support it. 

We did not propose to ban the use of 

electric prods on equines for slaughter. 

The regulations already provide that 

electric prods may not be used on 

equines for slaughter except when 

human safety is threatened. 

A number of commenters requested 

changes outside the scope of the current 

rulemaking. These changes included 

adding certification requirements for 

owner/shippers, adding inspection 

requirements, and increasing 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

changes, if undertaken, would have to 

be part of a separate rulemaking and 

made available for public comment 

before being adopted. 

Many commenters suggested banning 

the use of double-deck trailers for 

transport of all equines, restricting 

shipments of equines to Mexico and 

Canada, establishing a complete ban on 

the use of electric prods, and outlawing 

slaughter of equines in the United 

States. These suggested actions are 

outside APHIS’ statutory authority. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final 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 the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

benefits, reduce costs, harmonize rules 

across agencies, and promote flexibility. 

The economic analysis also analyzes the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The analysis 

is summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

above for instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov). 

This final rule amends the regulations 

regarding the commercial transportation 

of equines to slaughter by making 

equines delivered to intermediate points 

en route to slaughter subject to the same 

regulations as those moved directly to 

slaughtering establishments. The 

purpose of the rule is to ensure the 

humane treatment of equines bound for 

slaughter that are moved first to an 

assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. 

The regulations require that the 

equines have access to food, water and 

the opportunity to rest for at least 6 

hours prior to transit and following 28 

consecutive hours or more of transit; 

adequate space during transit to prevent 

injury or discomfort; segregation of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
55216 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

stallions or other aggressive equines; use 

of electric prods only in life-threatening 

situations; and certification of each 

equine’s fitness to travel, including 

notation of any special handling needs. 

Since 2007, no commercial equine 

slaughter facilities have operated in the 

United States. However, the amended 

regulations will apply to entities that 

transport equines within the United 

States for slaughter in Canada or 

Mexico. Shippers who transport equines 

from farms or feedlots to intermediate 

points en route to slaughter are likely to 

be largely in regulatory compliance 

voluntarily. They have an incentive to 

provide the animals with food, water, 

and care as required by the regulations 

because healthy equines have increased 

slaughter value. 

The rule will ban the use of doubledeck trailers, as is currently the case 

when equines are transported directly to 

slaughter. Double-deck trailers have a 

greater carrying capacity (45 equines) 

than single-deck trailers (38 equines). 

Fewer equines per conveyance will 

mean increased transportation costs on 

a per animal basis. Commercial 

transporters typically charge a flat rate 

per shipment, and should be little 

affected by the ban on double-deck 

trailers. However, businesses that rely 

on their own or hired double-deck 

trailers to transport equines will be 

negatively affected by the reduced 

number of animals that can be 

transported per trip. Notwithstanding 

the prevalence of small entities among 

businesses that may be affected, the 

effects of the rule are expected to be 

relatively minor. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

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 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has 

no retroactive effect; and (3) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Executive Order 13175 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13175, APHIS has consulted with Tribal 

Government officials. A tribal summary 

impact statement has been prepared that 

includes a summary of Tribal officials’ 

concerns and of how APHIS has 

attempted to address them. The tribal 

summary impact statement may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

(see http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2006-0168). In addition, copies may be 

obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0332. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 88 

Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 88 as follows: 

PART 88—COMMERCIAL 

TRANSPORTATION OF EQUINES FOR 

SLAUGHTER 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 88 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1901, 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, 

371.4. 

■ 2. Section 88.1 is amended by adding, 

in alphabetical order, new definitions 

for ‘‘assembly point’’, ‘‘equine for 

slaughter’’, ‘‘feedlot’’, and ‘‘stockyard’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 88.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Assembly point. Any facility, 

including auction markets, ranches, 

feedlots, and stockyards, in which 

equines are gathered in commerce. 

* * * * * 

Equine for slaughter. Any member of 

the Equidae family being transferred to 

a slaughter facility, including an 

assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. 

* * * * * 

Feedlot. Any facility which 

consolidates livestock for 

preconditioning, feeding, fattening, or 

holding before being sent to slaughter. 

* * * * * 

Stockyard. Any place, establishment, 

or facility commonly known as 

stockyards, conducted, operated, or 

managed for profit or nonprofit as a 

public market for livestock producers, 

feeders, market agencies, and buyers, 

consisting of pens, or other enclosures, 

and their appurtenances, in which live 

cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or 

goats are received, held, or kept for sale 

or shipment in commerce. 

* * * * * 

§ 88.2 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 88.2, paragraph (b) is amended 

by removing the words ‘‘equines to a 

slaughtering facility’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their 

place. 

§ 88.3 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 88.3 is amended as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

by removing the words ‘‘equines to 

slaughtering facilities’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their 

place. 

■ b. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘Equines in commercial 

transportation to slaughtering facilities’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘Equines for 

slaughter’’ in their place. 

§ 88.4 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 88.4 is amended as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

by removing the words ‘‘equines to a 

slaughtering facility’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their 

place. 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(3) introductory 

text, by removing the words ‘‘transit to 

the slaughtering facility’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘transit to slaughter’’ in their 

place. 

■ c. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

by removing the words ‘‘transit to the 

slaughtering facility’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘commercial transportation of 

equines for slaughter’’ in their place. 

■ d. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the 

words ‘‘equine to the slaughtering 

facility’’ and adding the words ‘‘equines 

for slaughter’’ in their place. 

■ e. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words ‘‘equines in commercial 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 55217 

1Public Law 104–50, 109 Stat. 436 (November 15, 

1995). 

2 61 FR 24348; May 14, 1996. 

3 63 FR 45372; August 25, 1998. 

4 64 FR 32926; June 18, 1999. 

5 64 FR 47361; August 31, 1999. 

6The FAA published the text of the delegations 

set forth in the July 29, 1998 memorandum in the 

Federal Register (see 63 FR 49151; September 14, 

1998). 7 65 FR 19958–01; April 13, 2000. 

8 69 FR 17469–02; April 2, 2004. 

9The 2010 Delegation was issued by the 

Administrator in a memorandum dated March 31, 

2010. Although the FAA has not yet published the 

text of the memorandum in the Federal Register, 

the public can view the memorandum itself at 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc70/ 

odra_process/. 

transportation to a slaughtering facility’’ 

both times they occur and adding the 

words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their 

place. 

■ f. In paragraphs (d) and (e), by 

removing the words ‘‘equines to a 

slaughtering facility’’ both times they 

occur and adding the words ‘‘equines 

for slaughter’’ in their place. 

■ g. By adding an OMB citation at the 

end of the section to read ‘‘(Approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 0579– 

0160 and 0579–0332)’’. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of 

August 2011. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22762 Filed 9–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0840; Amdt. No. 17– 

1] 

RIN 2120–AJ82 

Procedures for Protests and Contracts 

Dispute 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action updates, 

simplifies, and streamlines the current 

regulations governing the procedures for 

bid protests brought against the FAA 

and contract disputes brought against or 

by the FAA. It also adds a voluntary 

dispute avoidance and early resolution 

process. This action ensures the 

regulations reflect the changes that have 

evolved since they were first 

implemented in 1999. The intended 

effect of this action is to further improve 

the protest and dispute process. 

DATES: Effective October 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see the How To Obtain 

Additional Information section of this 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marie A. Collins, Senior Attorney and 

Dispute Resolution Officer, FAA Office 

of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, 

AGC–70, Room 8332, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 

366–6400. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking and 

Background 

In 1995 Congress, through the 

Department of Transportation 

Appropriations Act,1 directed the FAA 

‘‘to develop and implement, not later 

than April 1, 1996, an acquisition 

management system that addressed the 

unique needs of the agency and, at a 

minimum, provided for more timely and 

cost effective acquisitions of equipment 

and materials.’’ The Act instructed the 

FAA to design the system, 

notwithstanding provisions of Federal 

acquisition law, and to not use certain 

provisions of Federal acquisition law. In 

response, the FAA developed the 

Acquisition Management System (AMS) 

for the management of FAA 

procurement. The AMS included a 

system of policy guidance that 

maximized the use of agency discretion 

in the interest of best business practices. 

As a part of the AMS, the FAA created 

the Office of Dispute Resolution for 

Acquisition (ODRA) to facilitate the 

Administrator’s review of procurement 

protests and contract disputes. In a 1996 

notice 2 published in the Federal 

Register, the FAA announced the 

creation of the ODRA and stated the 

agency would promulgate rules of 

procedure governing the dispute 

resolution process. 

In August 1998, the FAA issued a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) 3 that proposed regulations 

under 14 CFR part 17 for the conduct of 

protests and contract disputes under the 

FAA AMS. The comment period for the 

NPRM closed on October 26, 1998. On 

June 18, 1999,4 the FAA published the 

final rule entitled, Procedures for 

Protests and Contract Disputes; 

Amendment of Equal Access to Justice 

Act Regulations, which codified 

(effective June 28, 1999) the procedures 

governing the dispute resolution 

process. On August 31, 1999, the FAA 

published a document 5 that made 

certain corrections to the June 1999 final 

rule. 

In addition to the rules of procedures, 

ODRA operates pursuant to delegations 

of authority from the Administrator. In 

a memorandum signed by the 

Administrator on July 29, 1998 (1998 

Delegation),6 the Administrator 

generally authorized the ODRA through 

its Director to provide dispute 

resolution services including 

administrative adjudication of all bid 

protests and contract disputes under the 

AMS. The 1998 Delegation further 

provided that all final decisions must be 

executed by the Administrator. The 

1998 Delegation was expanded by a 

Delegation dated March 27, 2000 (2000 

Delegation), which provided additional 

authority to the ODRA Director ‘‘to 

execute and issue, on behalf of the 

Administrator, Orders and Final 

Decisions for the Administrator in all 

matters within the ODRA’s jurisdiction 

valued at not more than $1 Million.’’ 7

The 2000 Delegation was superseded by 

a Delegation of Authority from the 

Administrator, dated March 10, 2004 

(2004 Delegation), which increased the 

dollar limit of the final decisional 

authority of the ODRA Director from $1 

Million to $5 Million.8 The 2004 

Delegation was superseded by another 

Delegation of Authority dated March 31, 

2010 (2010 Delegation), which increased 

the dollar limit of the final decisional 

authority of the ODRA Director from $5 

Million to $10 Million.9

Congress provided further 

confirmation about the FAA’s dispute 

resolution authority in the Vision 100- 

Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 

of 2003 (2003 Reauthorization Act), see 

Public Law 108–176, § 224(b), 117 Stat. 

2490, 2528 (codified as amended at 49 

U.S.C. 40110(d)(4)), which confirmed 

the ODRA’s exclusive jurisdiction. 

Specifically, the 2003 Reauthorization 

Act expressly provided at Subsection 

(b)(2)(4) under the title ‘‘Adjudication of 

Certain Bid Protests and Contract 

Disputes,’’ that ‘‘[a] bid protest or 

contract dispute that is not addressed or 

resolved through alternative dispute 

resolution shall be adjudicated by the 

Administrator, through Dispute 

Resolution Officers or Special Masters 

of the Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Dispute Resolution for 

Acquisition, acting pursuant to Sections 

46102, 46104, 46105, 46106 and 46107 

and shall be subject to judicial review 

under Section 46110 and Section 504 of 

Title 5.’’ 

The ODRA dispute resolution 

procedures encourage the parties to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES