40844 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. 98–043–1]

Field Study; Definition

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

the Animal Welfare regulations by

clarifying the definition of the term field

study. We want to clarify that a field

study cannot involve an invasive

procedure, harm the animals under

study, or materially alter the behavior of

the animals under study. As currently

worded, the definition of field study

could be interpreted to mean that a field

study may include one of these

situations. This action would help

ensure the proper use and care of

animals used in field studies.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before

September 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 98–043–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 98–043–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary

Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD

20737–1228, (301) 734–7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Animal Welfare Act (the Act) (7 U.S.C.

2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture to promulgate standards and

other requirements governing the

humane handling, housing, care,

treatment, and transportation of certain

animals by dealers, research facilities,

exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate

handlers.

The regulations established under the

Act are contained in title 9 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), chapter

I, subchapter A, parts 1, 2, and 3. Part

1 defines various terms used in parts 2

and 3.

We are proposing to amend the

definition of field study. Currently, a

field study, as defined in § 1.1 of the

regulations, is any study that is

‘‘conducted on free-living wild animals

in their natural habitat, which does not

involve an invasive procedure, and

which does not harm or materially alter

the behavior of the animals under

study.’’

We have always intended that field

studies not include any invasive

procedures, harm the animals under

study, or materially alter the behavior of

the animals under study. However, we

are concerned that, as currently worded,

the definition could be interpreted to

mean that a field study may include any

one of these situations.

Determining whether a study should

be classified as a field study is essential

because a field study is not subject to

the regulations in § 2.31(d). In § 2.31,

paragraph (d) requires the Institutional

Animal Care and Use Committee

(IACUC) for each research facility to

review all studies, except field studies,

to ensure that the planned care and use

of the animals comply with the Act and

the regulations in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3.

However, if the definition of a field

study is not clear, a study that involves

an invasive procedure or harms or

materially alters the behavior of the

animals under study may be

misclassified as a field study and,

accordingly, would not be reviewed by

the IACUC.

We are, therefore, proposing to amend

the definition of field study in § 1.1. We

would define field study as any study

conducted on free-living wild animals

in their natural habitat. We would also

add the provision that the term field

study excludes any study that involves

an invasive procedure or has the

potential to harm or materially alter the

behavior of the animals under study.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be not

significant for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

This proposed rule would clarify the

definition of field study. Currently, a

field study, as defined in § 1.1 of the

regulations, is any study that is

‘‘conducted on free-living wild animals

in their natural habitat, which does not

involve an invasive procedure, and

which does not harm or materially alter

the behavior of the animals under

study.’’

We have always intended that field

studies not include any invasive

procedures, harm the animals under

study, or materially alter the behavior of

the animals under study. However, we

are concerned that, as currently worded,

the definition could be interpreted to

mean that a field study may include any

one of these situations. By clarifying the

definition of field study, this proposed

rule would help ensure that studies that

should be subject to the Animal Welfare

regulations are subject to the Animal

Welfare regulations.

The only entities that would be

affected by this proposed rule would be

entities that perform studies conducted

on free-living wild animals in their

natural habitat. We estimate that at least

50 entities may be impacted by this

proposed rule; however, we do not have

an exact number. These entities may be

considered small and large entities by

Small Business Administration

standards, but this proposed rule would

only affect a small portion of the

entities’ activities. As we are not

proposing a substantive change in the

definition, the impact on these entities

should not be significant.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action would 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 proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. It is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This rule would

not preempt any State and local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. The Act does not provide

administrative procedures which must

be exhausted prior to a judicial

challenge to the provisions of this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

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

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 1

Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40845

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9

CFR part 1 as follows:

PART 1—DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. The authority citation for part 1

would continue to read as follows:

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

2.80, and 371.2(g).

2. In § 1.1, the definition of field study

would be revised to read as follows:

§ 1.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Field study means any study

conducted on free-living wild animals

in their natural habitat. This term

excludes any study that involves an

invasive procedure or has the potential

to harm or materially alter the behavior

of an animal under study.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of

July 1998.

Alfred S. Elder,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20499 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–CE–69–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. Models PC–12 and PC–12/

45 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD) that would apply to Pilatus

Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models PC–12 and

PC–12/45 airplanes that are equipped

with the ‘‘corporate commuter cabin

layout.’’ This layout is a Pilatus

designation only and the affected

airplanes are not certificated for

commuter operation. The proposed AD

would require modifying the passenger

seats and seat rail covers. The proposed

AD is the result of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI) issued by the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland. The actions

specified by the proposed AD are

intended to prevent passenger injuries

because the passenger seat configuration

has been found to not fully meet current

head injury criteria regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Central Region,

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–CE–69–

AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments

may be inspected at this location

between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, holidays excepted.

Service information that applies to the

proposed AD may be obtained from

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison

Manager, CH–6371 Stans, Switzerland;

telephone: +41 41 619 62 33; facsimile:

+41 41 610 33 51. This information also

may be examined at the Rules Docket at

the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Roman T. Gabrys, Aerospace Engineer,

Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane

Certification Service, FAA, 1201

Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri

64106; telephone: (816) 426–6932;

facsimile: (816) 426–2169.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications

should identify the Rules Docket

number and be submitted in triplicate to

the address specified above. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments, specified

above, will be considered before taking

action on the proposed rule. The

proposals contained in this notice may

be changed in light of the comments

received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 98–CE–69–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket No. 98–CE–69–AD, Room 1558,

601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri

64106.

Discussion

The Federal Office for Civil Aviation

(FOCA), which is the airworthiness

authority for Switzerland, recently

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on Models PC–12

and PC–12/45 airplanes that are

equipped with the ‘‘corporate commuter

cabin layout.’’ This layout is a Pilatus

designation only and the affected

airplanes are not certificated for

commuter operation. The FOCA of

Switzerland reports that the current

executive cabin layout of the abovereferenced airplanes, in particular the

passenger seat configuration, has been

found to not fully meet the head injury

criteria (HIC) requirements of section

23.562 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 23.562).

These conditions, if not corrected in

a timely manner, could result in

passenger injuries during an airplane

crash because the passenger seat

configuration has been found to not

fully meet current head injury criteria

regulations.

Relevant Service Information

Pilatus has issued Service Bulletin

No. 25–006, dated April 7, 1998, which

specifies procedures for modifying the

passenger seats and seat rail covers.

The FOCA of Switzerland classified

this service bulletin as mandatory and

issued Swiss AD HB 98–179, dated June

15, 1998, in order to assure the

continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in Switzerland.

The FAA’s Determination

These airplane models are

manufactured in Switzerland and are

type certificated for operation in the

United States under the provisions of

section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the

applicable bilateral airworthiness

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral

airworthiness agreement, the FOCA of

Switzerland has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above.

The FAA has examined the findings

of the FOCA of Switzerland; reviewed

all available information, including the

service information referenced above;

and determined that AD action is

necessary for products of this type

design that are certificated for operation

in the United States.