Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/18/2013-22616/animal-welfare-retail-pet-stores-and-licensing-exemptions
Timestamp: 2014-04-25 01:05:17
Document Index: 100093570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', 'art 3', 'arts 1', 'ART 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2']

Federal Register | Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions
-57250 (24 pages)
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-22616 Related Topics
Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores 5 actions from May 16th, 2012 to July 2013
Potentially Affected Dog Breeder Calculations—A Breeder Must Meet All Criteria Before Licensing Is Required
Because the previous definition of retail pet store in the AWA regulations covered nearly all retail outlets, retailers selling animals by any means, including sight unseen sales conducted over the Internet or by mail, telephone, or any other method where customers do not personally observe the animals available for sale prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of them, were considered to be retail pet stores and as such had been exempt from licensing and inspection under § 2.1(a)(3)(i) and § 2.1(a)(3)(vii).1
In order to ensure that the definition of retail pet store in the AWA regulations is consistent with the AWA and that all animals sold at retail for use as pets are monitored for their health and humane treatment, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 28799-28805, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003), on May 16, 2012, a proposal2
to revise the definition of retail pet store and related regulations to bring more pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the AWA. This rule finalizes that proposed rule while also making changes to its provisions based on the comments we received (see the section below titled “Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action”).
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action Back to Top
Revising our proposed definition of retail pet store so that it means a place of business or residence (not necessarily that of the seller's) at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal available for sale prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase and where only certain animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets.
Amending the exemption from licensing for persons maintaining four or fewer breeding females in § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) to apply only to wholesalers (for whom the exemption was originally intended).
Restoring and amending the exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) so that any person including, but not limited to, purebred dog or cat fanciers, who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, and who sells, at retail, only the offspring of these dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license, is also considered a retail pet store for regulatory purposes.
Explaining in detail the effects of the proposed provisions on cat and rabbit breeders.
Newly regulated breeders will be subject to licensing, animal identification and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, affected entities will be subject to standards for facilities and operations, animal health and husbandry, and transportation. One set of costs attributable to the rule will be incurred annually by all newly regulated entities, such as licensing fees. Other costs will depend on the manner and extent to which entities are not complying with the basic standards of the AWA. Some of these costs will be one-time costs in the first year, such as providing adequate shelter; others will recur yearly, such as providing adequate veterinary care.
We solicited comments on the proposed rule for 60 days ending July 16, 2012. On July 16, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (77 FR 41716, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0003) a document
announcing a 30-day extension of the comment period to give the public more time to submit comments. We also announced in that document the availability of a factsheet
regarding the provisions of the proposed rule.
In the paragraphs that follow, we use discrete portions of the proposed definition as section headings to organize our discussion of the comments we received on various aspects of the proposed definition. Later in this document we take the same approach in our discussion of the comments received on the proposed definition of retail pet store and the proposed revisions to the exemptions from licensing contained in the AWA regulations.
Dealer:“Any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit. . .”
Dealer:“Including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum, or other parts. . . .”
Dealer:“For research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet…”
Dealer:“Any retail outlet where dogs are sold for hunting, security, or breeding purposes. . .”
Many commenters stated that if the purpose of this clause is to exempt sellers and buyers of working dogs from being dealers, its description is too limited in scope. The commenters cited a number of different uses for a dog—a companion animal for individuals with disabilities, a guide dog, a herd or livestock dog, a sled dog, or a rescue dog—that do not fall within the scope of these uses but that require a dog to be trained to perform a specific function. The commenters urged us to expand the exemption to cover additional uses or to amend it to specify that it covers dogs sold at retail for work purposes.
Dealer:“Who does not sell or negotiate the sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of [such animals] during any calendar year.”
Retail Pet Store:“A place of business or residence. . .”
“Outlet” as used in the definition has always referred simply to the activity of retailing animals, not necessarily within the confines of a “brick-and-mortar” pet store or even a physical location. Accordingly, “outlet” in this context can include the sale of animals sight unseen, which is the retail activity that we proposed to regulate. For this reason, we proposed removing the word “outlet” and replacing it with “place of business or residence.”
In the factsheet,
we clarified our proposed change to the retail pet store definition by noting that pet animal retailers who sell their animals to customers in face-to-face transactions at a location other than their premises are also subject to some degree of public oversight, and therefore we would not regulate them for that activity.
The definition of “hobby breeder” provided by the commenter is our longstanding understanding of that term. However, we are retaining the word “residence” in the definition of retail pet store because we established in Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Veneman
that we consider residential breeders selling pets at retail to be included under the exemption of “retail pet stores” in the AWA.
Retail Pet Store:“That each buyer physically enters. . . .”
Retailers who, for whatever reason, do not consider it possible for each buyer to personally observe their animals prior to purchasing them and/or taking custody of them may still be exempt from licensing if they do not sell the animals at retail for one of the six purposes covered under the definition of dealer. If they sell the animals at retail for one of those six purposes, but maintain four or fewer breeding females and sell only the offspring born and raised on their premises, they are also exempt from licensing.
The same commenters pointed out that APHIS' stated second reason for not establishing a threshold, that animals sold sight unseen could be kept under conditions different from those sold to walk-ins, is not resolved by eliminating sight unseen sales from the exemption. The commenters pointed out that a large-scale breeder could appear to be in compliance with the regulations by establishing a “brick-and-mortar” facility for walk-ins while engaging surreptitiously in sight unseen sales of animals bred at another location. The commenters stated that an exemption based on percentage of retail sales would be likely to dissuade such abuses. Another commenter noted that, for many small-scale residential dog breeders, sight unseen sales constitute 20 percent of annual sales. The commenter stated that APHIS should therefore adopt an “80/20” threshold of face-to-face to sight unseen sales.
Retail Pet Store:“That each buyer physically enters. . . . ”
On the other hand, several commenters stated that, for the sake of animal welfare, buyers need to personally observe the breeding and living conditions of animals available for sale prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of those animals. The commenters suggested that we amend the definition of retail pet store to specify that buyers must be able to see these conditions.
Internet sellers who shift their model of business in such a manner would have to provide buyers with the opportunity to personally observe animals for sale prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of them, and thus will engage in a retail model that is consistent with the AWA. Our analysis of the industry is that dealers who currently use an Internet sales business model would not find it economically viable to shift their business model in such a manner and would instead opt for licensing and inspection by USDA. As noted in our economic analysis, we believe that between 2,600 and 4,640 dog breeders who currently claim retail pet store status will no longer be able to do so under this rule. However, USDA will monitor the rule's implementation and consider proposing new rules should we determine that the AWA's intent is not being served.
Retail Pet Store:“In order to personally observe the animals . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“Where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“cats . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“. . . rabbits, guinea pigs . . .”
FFA and 4-H participants who sell their rabbits for the purposes of food or fiber (including fur) or in face-to-face transactions at county fairs, rabbit shows, and other agricultural exhibitions are exempt from licensing regardless of the number sold.
Retail Pet Store:“. . . rats . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“. . . gophers . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“. . . domestic farm animals . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“. . . birds . . .”
Retail Pet Store:“. . . coldblooded species”
As the commenter noted, cold-blooded species do not fall under the definition of animal in § 1.1 and are therefore not regulated.
Retail Pet Store:“A retail pet store also includes any person who meets the criteria in § 2.1(a)(3)(iii) of this subchapter.”
We are making no changes in response to these comments. The $500 gross income limit was mandated by Congress within the AWA. However, it is important to note that under the proposed rule, there are a number of ways that persons who sell animals covered by this exemption (including rabbits, guinea pigs (cavies), and rats) can be exempted from licensing, either by not meeting the definition of dealer in § 1.1 or through one or more of the licensing exemptions in § 2.1 (see the section below titled “Retail Pet Store: “. . . rabbits, guinea pigs . . .”).
Breeding Females and Offspring:“Any person who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals. . . .”
A number of commenters stated that litter sizes for hobby breeds and small breeds are considerably smaller than those for larger breeds, that four breeding females are therefore too few to maintain a viable breeding program, and that setting the exemption at four would accordingly encourage overbreeding of the animals. They also stated that a lack of genetic diversity from having four or fewer breeding females would result in offspring that would be less desirable to buyers seeking strong breed characteristics. Others noted that small-scale breeders typically do not breed their dogs every estrus cycle. As a female will produce offspring with the same strengths and weaknesses each time, such breeders will often wait until her female pups mature and then breed the best of them in order to further improve the breed line. For these reasons, several breeders stated that 6 breeding females is the minimum necessary to have a viable breeding program for their breed; other breeders stated that it should be 10, 12, or 20 for their breed. One commenter stated that USDA has historically acknowledged a “tipping point” at 60 breeding females after which animal welfare violations become disproportionately common. The commenter asked why 60 had not been selected as the cut-off.
A considerable number of commenters expressed uncertainty about what APHIS considers to be a breeding female and asked us to define the term in the final rule. Many of these commenters stated that “breeding” should not be considered equivalent to “sexually mature and sexually intact.” Several commenters cited health concerns with having their dogs breed. One of the commenters pointed out that her female dogs become sexually mature at 6 months of age, but that breeding them at that age would pose a serious health risk to the female dog and had little possibility of resulting in a live litter. Other commenters raised a similar point regarding older female dogs. A number of these commenters stated that “retired” female dogs should not count towards the total; many of these commenters cited peer-reviewed articles
stating that keeping a retired female sexually intact is conducive to animal health and welfare. A number of commenters stated that a female dog should be considered a breeding female only when it is an age at which it is generally agreed her breed is capable of producing a live litter.
A few commenters pointed out that any definition of “breeding female” would likely exclude animals that should fall within its scope and include animals that should not. They stated that the determination that an animal is a breeding female should ultimately be at an inspector's discretion. Other commenters agreed that the determination must be the inspector's, but stated that APHIS should provide certain considerations that factor into this determination, at the risk of otherwise appearing arbitrary and capricious. One commenter stated that these considerations should include frequency of estrous cycles and the age at which the female could bear a litter. Two other commenters stated that tests, such as the OFA, Penn Hip, thyroid, and recognized breed-related tests, should factor into our determination regarding whether an animal has the capacity to breed.
As we explained in the proposed rule, we have enforceability concerns regarding an exemption based on number of puppies sold: We cannot require individuals who are exempt from licensing to keep records regarding animal sales, but would need such recordkeeping in order to enforce the exemption. No commenters suggested that such recordkeeping was unnecessary for enforcement purposes, nor did commenters suggest alternate means of obtaining the necessary information.
Breeding Females and Offspring:“And who sells only the offspring of these dogs, cats, or small exotic or wild mammals, which were born and raised on his or her premises. . . .”
Breeding Females and Offspring:“This exemption does not apply . . . to any person acting in concert with others where they collectively maintain a total of more than three breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals regardless of ownership. . . .”
One commenter stated that we should state in the final rule that removing the exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) will subject dog and cat fanciers to licensing and the possibility of inspections, but will not force them to comply with the standards in 9 CFR part 3. Several commenters suggested that we require dog and cat fanciers to follow the standards in part 3 that pertain to grouping, exercise, feeding, watering, and cleaning, but that we exempt them from the facility standards of that part, which are impracticable for breeders who raise animals in their homes. Specifically, a number of commenters cited the standards in § 3.2 regarding impervious materials and § 3.6 regarding whelping areas as being cost-prohibitive for most residential breeders. Several of these commenters suggested that we amend part 3 in the final rule to establish alternate, performance-based standards for dog and cat fanciers and other small-scale residential breeders.
On the other hand, a commenter supporting the proposed rule commented that APHIS is capable of handling the enforcement responsibility of the proposed rule without hiring large numbers of additional personnel. The commenter acknowledged that the number of additional facilities that would be subject to licensing under this rule would be difficult to determine. They noted, however, that even if the new regulation doubled the number of operations subject to USDA regulation, the inspection burden would merely return to approximately the level that was handled by USDA in 2008. APHIS' plan is to incorporate newly affected entities into our existing regulatory structure using a phased implementation for conducting initial prelicensing inspections and compliance inspections. Factors we would consider when determining when and how frequently such inspections would take place include, but are not limited to: (1) Whether an entity has applied for a USDA license; (2) whether an entity is already subject to some degree of State, county, or local oversight, and the nature of that oversight; and (3) whether an entity is the subject of a legitimate complaint and the nature or severity of that complaint. We will conduct periodic compliance inspections based on a risk-based inspection system that calculates the level of risk of noncompliance.
A number of commenters suggested that the need for inspections would be greatly reduced if APHIS increased penalties for dealers who violate existing AWA regulations. One commenter pointed out that the 2010 USDA OIG audit
(referred to below as the OIG audit) referenced in the proposed rule found that few, if any, first-time violators of the AWA were subject to an enforcement action, even for those found to be in direct violation of the Act. The commenter suggested that penalizing all first-time offenders would decrease recidivism, would further animal welfare within the United States, and could obviate the need for the proposed rule.
A few breeders stated that, while they were not regulated stringently at the State level, they were subject to very stringent city or local regulations, and that these regulations obviated the need for further Federal regulation. The breeders suggested a locality-by-locality review of existing regulations prior to issuance of a Federal rule, and also encouraged us to claim selective preemption.
One commenter stated that the AWA does not address privately owned property, nor does it provide that a retail business must permit customers to personally visit the seller's property to be considered a retail pet store. The commenter also stated that there is no assumption in the AWA that animal welfare entails customers visiting a seller's property and monitoring the property for compliance with the AWA.
A number of commenters stated that the factsheet
contained several responses that contradicted the provisions of the proposed rule. Many of these commenters stated that the average person would not interpret the “physical entry” provision of the definition of retail pet store to allow face to face off-site transactions to occur. One of these commenters also asserted that the factsheet appears to grant a blanket exemption from licensing to all rescue groups, and that this exemption was neither explicit nor inferred within the proposed rule.
One commenter stated that Congress has amended the AWA several times since its promulgation, but never sought to define “retail pet store” or otherwise restrict certain entities from considering themselves to be retail pet stores. It is our contention that our proposed definition of the term retail pet store is consistent with the AWA.
There is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the number of facilities that will be affected by this rule, as we acknowledged in the proposed rule, and as evidenced in the public comments. There are hundreds of distinct dog breeds, and correspondingly large numbers of dog breeders in the United States. Breeders with an online presence are those most likely to be selling the offspring sight unseen and thus are more likely to be affected by this rule. We estimate that there could be between 8,400 and 15,000 such dog breeders in the United States. This estimate is based on the assumption that for every five breeders identified by APHIS in online breeder registries there is one other breeder that has not been identified who also uses remote marketing methods.
Potentially Affected Dog Breeder Calculations—A Breeder Must Meet All Criteria Before Licensing Is Required Back to Top
Criteria for inclusion2
1Two multi-breed breeder listings: www.puppysites.com and www.dogbreederregistry.com, and individual breed breeder listings for 160 individual breeds.
2Expert judgment based on online breeder registries, public comments, and APHIS' knowledge of industry practices.
Number of Listed Breeders1
7,000 to 12,500.
Inclusion of breeders not listed
For every five breeders listed, we assume one more not listed who also has a remote marketing presence
(a) * 1.2
8,400 to 15,000.
Breeder sells pets
75% of breeders sell dogs as pets, i.e., not for hunting, security, breeding, etc
(b) * 0.75
6,300 to 11,250.
AND Breeder has more than 4 breeding females
55% of breeders have more than 4 breeding females
(c) * 0.55
3,465 to 6,188.
AND Buyer purchases dog sight unseen
75% of breeders sell one or more dogs without the purchaser physically observing the dog before purchase and/or taking custody
(d) * 0.75
2,599 to 4,641.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Parts 1 and 2 Back to Top
PART 1—DEFINITION OF TERMS Back to Top
2.In § 1.1, the definitions of dealer and retail pet store are revised to read as follows: § 1.1 Definitions.
4.Section 2.1 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (a)(3)(i);
1. Both the retail pet store exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(i) and the direct retail sales exemption in § 2.1(a)(3)(vii) derive their authority from the AWA exemption for retail pet stores. We discuss this at greater length later in this document.
2. To view the proposed rule, its supporting documents, and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003.
3. To view this document, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0003-8841.
4. To view the factsheet, go to http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_welfare/2012/retail_pets_faq.pdf.
6. Doris Day Animal League v. Veneman, 01-5351: published 1/23/2003. Doris Day Animal League filed a rulemaking petition with the Agriculture Department, urging a change in the regulatory definition of “retail pet store” so that residential operations would not be exempted. On March 25, 1997, the Secretary published the petition in the Federal Register (62 FR 14044) and received more than 36,000 comments. On July 19, 1999, when the Secretary announced in the Federal Register that he would retain the definition, and stated the reasons why (64 FR 38546), Doris Day Animal League and other organizations and individuals concerned about the mistreatment of dogs brought this action for judicial review.
7. The documents cited were: (1) Parvene Farhoody and M. Christine Zink. Behavioral and Physical Effects of Spaying and Neutering Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris). (2) Laura J. Sanborn, M.S. Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay/Neuter in Dogs.
8. To view this audit, go to http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf. The major objectives of the OIG audit were to examine Animal Care's enforcement process against dealers that violated the AWA and to review the impact of recent changes that APHIS made to the penalty assessment process.