16592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

handlers. While assessments impose 

some additional costs on handlers, the 

costs are minimal and uniform on all 

handlers. Some of the additional costs 

may be passed on to producers. 

However, these costs would be offset by 

the benefits derived from the operation 

of the marketing order. In addition, the 

committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the California’s 

olive industry and all interested persons 

were invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all committee 

meetings, the December 9, 2014, 

meeting was a public meeting and all 

entities, both large and small, were 

encouraged to express views on this 

issue. Finally, interested persons are 

invited to submit comments on this 

proposed rule including the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0178. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this action are necessary. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they would be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

This proposed rule would impose no 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

California olive handlers. As with all 

Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this action. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny 

at the previously-mentioned address in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2015 fiscal year began on January 1, 

2015, and the marketing order requires 

that the rate of assessment for each 

fiscal year apply to all assessable olives 

handled during such fiscal year; (2) the 

committee needs to have sufficient 

funds to pay its expenses, which are 

incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) 

both regulated handlers were present at 

the December 9, 2014, meeting, and are 

aware of this action, which was 

unanimously recommended by the 

committee at a public meeting, and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Olives, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 932 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 932.230 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 932.230 Assessment rate. 

On and after January 1, 2015, an 

assessment rate of $26.00 per ton is 

established for California olives. 

Dated: March 24, 2015. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07116 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 1 and 2 

[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0050] 

Petition To Define Alternatives to 

Procedures That May Cause Pain or 

Distress and To Establish Standards 

Regarding Consideration of These 

Alternatives 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of petition. 

SUMMARY: We are notifying the public 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service has received a 

petition requesting that we amend the 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations 

to define the term alternatives, clarify 

the existing definition of painful 

procedure, and establish standards 

governing the consideration of such 

alternatives at research facilities that are 

registered under the AWA regulations. 

We are making this petition available to 

the public and soliciting comments 

regarding the petition and any issues 

raised by the petition that we should 

take into account as we consider this 

petition. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before May 29, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0050. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2014–0050, 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-2014-0050 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: Dr. 

Carol Clarke, Research Program 

Manager, USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 

4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1234; (301) 851–3751. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Animal Welfare Act (AWA, 7 U.S.C. 

2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to promulgate standards and 

other requirements governing research 

facilities. The Secretary has delegated 

the responsibility for enforcing the 

AWA to the Administrator of the 

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 

promulgated under the AWA are 

contained in Title 9 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, and 3 

(referred to collectively below as the 

AWA regulations). Part 1 contains 

definitions of terms used within parts 2 

and 3. Part 2 contains licensing and 

registration regulations, regulations 

specific to research facilities, and 

regulations governing veterinary care, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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