[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10493-10499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5538]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 2 and 3

[Docket No. 95-078-3]
RIN 0579-AA74


Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats; Temperature Requirements

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for the humane treatment of 
animals under the Animal Welfare Act by revising certain requirements 
pertaining to climatic conditions. We are clarifying the current 
temperature requirements for dogs and cats in indoor, sheltered, and 
mobile and traveling housing facilities, in primary conveyances used 
for transportation, and in the animal holding areas of terminal 
facilities. We are also requiring that any animal covered by the Animal 
Welfare Act shall never be exposed to combinations of temperature, 
humidity, and time that would adversely affect the animal's health and 
well-being, taking into consideration the animal's health status, age, 
breed, or any other pertinent factor. When climatic conditions present 
a threat to an animal's health or well-being, appropriate measures must 
be taken to alleviate the impact of those conditions. This action will 
help ensure that animals protected by the Animal Welfare Act are 
maintained in climatic conditions conducive to the animals' health and 
well-being.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Smith, Staff Animal Health 
Technician, REAC, APHIS, suite 6D02, 4700 River Road Unit 84, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234, (301) 734-4972, or e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)(7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and 
other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, 
treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research 
facilities, exhibitors, and carriers and intermediate handlers. The 
Secretary has delegated the responsibility for enforcing the AWA to the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS). Regulations established under the AWA are 
contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3. Parts 1 and 2 contain definitions 
and general requirements, and part 3 contains specific standards for 
the care of animals. Subpart A of 9 CFR part 3 contains requirements 
specifically pertaining to dogs and cats.
    On July 2, 1996, we published in the Federal Register (61 FR 34386-
34389, Docket No. 95-078-1) a proposal to amend the regulations in 
subpart A of 9 CFR part 3 by removing the option for facilities to use 
tethering as a means of primary enclosure for dogs and revising the 
temperature requirements for indoor, sheltered, and mobile and 
traveling housing facilities, for primary conveyances used in 
transportation, and for the animal holding areas of terminal facilities 
to require that the ambient temperature must never exceed 90  deg.F 
(32.2  deg.C) when dogs or cats are present. This proposal was based, 
in part, on the recommendations and opinions expressed at three public 
meetings our agency hosted in 1996 to gather information on the 
regulations that apply to the care of dogs and cats in the commercial 
pet trade. In addition, our experience in AWA enforcement led us to 
conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by tethers is inhumane and 
that a maximum temperature restriction was needed for the care of dogs 
and cats in certain circumstances because there have been incidents in 
which dogs or cats exposed to extremely high temperatures during air 
travel died or were seriously harmed.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
September 3, 1996. We received 54 comments by that date. After 
reviewing the comments, we decided to publish a final rule regarding 
tethering and reconsider the temperature requirements. The final rule 
regarding tethering (62 FR 43272-43275, Docket No. 95-078-2) was 
published August 13, 1997. Therefore, this document concerns only the 
part of the proposal concerning temperature requirements for dogs and 
cats.
    Forty-two of the 54 comments received on the proposed rule 
addressed the proposed temperature requirements for dogs and cats. 
These comments were from dog dealers; associations representing the 
pets, transportation, animal feed, and biomedical research industries; 
pharmaceutical companies; humane organizations; a Federal government 
agency; a veterinarian; and other interested individuals. A few of the 
comments generally supported the proposal; the majority generally 
opposed it. Comments on the proposed rule itself are discussed below; 
comments on the potential economic effects of the proposed rule and on 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that was included in the 
proposed rule are discussed in the section of this document that 
pertains to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The issue raised by the most number of commenters was that the 
proposal appeared to be unfounded and that any proposed change to the 
AWA temperature requirements should be based on hard data supporting 
the need for the proposed change. This concern was expressed both by 
commenters who were opposed and commenters who were unopposed to the 
proposed rule. Several commenters mentioned the need for APHIS to 
consider two sources of relevant information: the recommendations 
regarding temperature requirements made at the three public meetings 
hosted by our agency in 1996 and from a study commissioned by our 
agency and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the

[[Page 10494]]

climatic conditions in cargo holds of various aircraft commonly used to 
transport animals.
    One commenter disagreed with the suggestion that we had 
insufficient data upon which to base the proposed rule. The commenter 
stated that Congress has been concerned about the safety of animals 
being transported by the airlines since 1976 and that, at one of the 
APHIS public meetings, several humane organizations reported receiving 
frequent complaints from the public regarding animal deaths during air 
transit. Conversely, another commenter stated that, while a few 
participants at the public meetings suggested that there have been 
numerous such incidents of animal deaths, no evidence was produced, and 
many participants did not agree with these assertions. One commenter 
requested documented evidence of such incidents, and we have provided 
information directly to the commenter regarding the cases APHIS has had 
against the major airlines in recent years.
    We are not aware of any scientific research that has been done that 
shows that the health and well-being of dogs and cats is seriously 
compromised at temperatures exceeding 90  deg.F. In fact, we believe 
that such a finding is unlikely because of the varying tolerances dogs 
and cats have to temperature extremes at different ages, the wide 
variety of dog breeds that have been developed over centuries for 
different purposes, including acclimation to different climates, and a 
host of other variables. As stated in the proposed rule, our belief 
that temperatures exceeding 90  deg.F can be harmful to dogs and cats 
was based on our experience in AWA enforcement and on the information 
gathered from the three public meetings. (We have not received the 
final report of the study on cargo holds commissioned by our agency and 
the FAA.) Despite a lack of hard data regarding a specific safe maximum 
temperature, our experience in regulating the care of dogs and cats and 
available information led us to believe that the current AWA 
temperature requirements were not adequate to ensure the well-being of 
dogs and cats in the commercial pet trade and that a maximum 
temperature limit was needed.
    The majority of the commenters were opposed to the establishment of 
a 90- deg.F limit for the care of dogs and cats in indoor and sheltered 
housing facilities and in primary conveyances used for transportation. 
Their numerous reasons included the following: That the proposed 90- 
deg.F limit would be unnecessarily restrictive because animals can 
adjust to temperature changes; that there is a lack of evidence that 
exposure of healthy adult dogs to temperatures in excess of 90  deg.F 
for limited periods of time is inhumane if the dogs are provided 
adequate ventilation and are shielded from the sun; and that the 90- 
deg.F limit was too high in that it would be insufficient for 
safeguarding the health and lives of dogs and cats in the circumstances 
covered in the proposal. Two commenters stated that the limit should be 
85  deg.F, and one commenter thought the limit should be 80  deg.F. 
Several commenters stated that, by itself, temperature is a poor 
indicator of comfort or stress and that other factors, such as 
humidity, airflow, length of exposure, and breed, hair coat, age, 
weight, health status, and acclimation of the animal, need to be 
considered in evaluating whether an animal is being exposed to 
significantly stressful conditions.
    A couple of commenters stated that care and treatment issues such 
as appropriate temperature levels cannot be effectively regulated by a 
single standard and should be left up to responsible veterinary 
evaluation and discretion. A few dealers stated that the proposed rule 
was unnecessary because people in the pet profession know how to care 
for animals and have a financial stake in ensuring their well-being. 
Several commenters stated that the current regulations pertaining to 
temperature requirements are sufficient for ensuring the health and 
well-being of dogs and cats, if the regulations are properly enforced. 
One commenter indicated that APHIS should not change the regulations 
pertaining to dog and cat dealers and instead should concentrate on 
enforcing temperature requirements for dogs and cats in transit by 
airlines.
    Several commenters took issue with the lack of flexibility in the 
proposed rule in that, as written, temperatures must ``never'' rise 
above 90  deg.F when dogs or cats are present. The commenters stated 
that a power failure occurring on a hot day could cause the temperature 
to rise above that level even in facilities with air conditioning, and 
then those facilities would be out of compliance with the proposed 
requirement. In addition, several commenters stated that this lack of 
flexibility would make it practically impossible at certain times of 
the year in most U.S. airport cities for pets to be shipped on aircraft 
because it is not feasible to assume that animals in air transit would 
``never'' be exposed to temperatures exceeding 90  deg.F. Many 
commenters expressed concern that the lack of flexibility in the 
proposed rule could cause the airlines to establish an embargo on 
shipping animals. One commenter suggested that, if an upper temperature 
limit is to be established, it would be better to give a time limit for 
the animals to be exposed to that temperature rather than mandate that 
the temperature shall ``never'' exceed that level when dogs or cats are 
present.
    We have carefully considered all of these comments and have decided 
that many of the concerns expressed have merit. We agree with the 
commenters that factors such as humidity and length of exposure, and 
age, breed, health status, and acclimation of the animal must all be 
considered in establishing a safe temperature range for a particular 
animal. Moreover, we agree that a prohibition on allowing dogs and cats 
in the circumstances covered by the proposal to be exposed to 
temperatures exceeding 90  deg.F for even a minimal amount of time 
under extenuating circumstances is neither feasible nor necessary; 
while many dogs or cats in the circumstances covered by the proposal 
might suffer at temperatures exceeding 90  deg.F for an extended period 
of time, few dogs or cats would not be able to withstand such 
temperatures for a limited period.
    We have decided that setting a maximum temperature limit--whether 
it be 90  deg.F or any other temperature--for the care of dogs and cats 
in the circumstances described in the proposed rule would not achieve 
our goals for establishing a sound temperature policy for these animals 
and would place an unnecessary burden on the regulated industry. 
Moreover, establishing a single maximum temperature that could be used 
to ensure the health and well-being of all dogs and cats covered by the 
AWA in indoor, sheltered, and mobile or traveling housing facilities, 
in primary conveyances used for transportation, and in the animal 
holding areas of terminal facilities, and still be realistic for the 
industry to achieve, would be very difficult because too many variables 
are involved.
    Instead, after carefully reviewing the comments received and 
further analyzing the current temperature requirements for dogs and 
cats in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3, we have decided that we basically agree 
with the commenters who stated that the current regulations are 
sufficient to protect the health and well-being of dogs and cats in the 
commercial pet trade. The incidents mentioned in the proposed rule in 
which animals died or were seriously harmed after having been exposed 
to extremely high temperatures during air

[[Page 10495]]

travel were the result of human error--not a lack of adequate governing 
regulations. All such cases of animal neglect have been successfully 
prosecuted based on the current regulations. However, we agree with 
opinions expressed at the public meetings on the care of dogs and cats 
in the commercial pet trade that the regulations pertaining to 
temperature requirements could and should be clarified and improved.
    The current regulations for the care of dogs and cats in indoor, 
sheltered, and mobile or traveling housing facilities, in primary 
conveyances used for transportation, and in the animal holding areas of 
terminal facilities state that, among other things, the ambient 
temperature must not fall below 45  deg.F or rise above 85  deg.F for 
more than 4 consecutive hours when dogs or cats are present (9 CFR 
3.2(a), 3.3(a), 3.5(a), and 3.15(e)). (For primary conveyances used for 
transportation, this requirement applies only during surface 
transportation.) The current regulations regarding the handling of dogs 
or cats to or from a primary conveyance or a terminal facility state 
that, among other things, the dogs or cats must not be exposed to an 
ambient temperature above 85  deg.F (29.5  deg.C) for a period of more 
than 45 minutes. We are concerned that some regulated parties have 
assumed that compliance with these temperature requirements is all that 
is required to ensure compliance with the AWA temperature requirements 
for dogs and cats in the circumstances just described. However, 9 CFR 
parts 2 and 3 include several other temperature and handling 
requirements that are also applicable to these animals.
    Additional temperature requirements in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3 
pertaining to dogs and cats in the circumstances covered by the 
proposed rule state that ``dogs and cats must be sufficiently heated 
and cooled when necessary to protect [them] from temperature extremes 
and to provide for their health and well-being'' (Secs. 3.2(a), 3.3(a), 
and 3.5(a)), ``[d]uring air transportation, dogs and cats must be held 
in cargo areas that are heated or cooled as necessary to maintain an 
ambient temperature that ensures the health and well-being of the dogs 
and cats'' (Sec. 3.15(d)), ``[d]uring surface transportation, auxiliary 
ventilation, such as fans, blowers or air conditioning, must be used in 
any animal cargo space containing live dogs or cats when the ambient 
temperature within the animal cargo space reaches 85  deg.F (29.5 
deg.C)'' (Sec. 3.15(e)), and ``handling of all animals shall be done . 
. . in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive 
cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort'' 
(Secs. 2.38(f)(1) and 2.131(a)(1)).
    The regulations that state that the ambient temperature must never 
rise above 85  deg.F for more than 4 consecutive hours (commonly 
referred to as the ``4-hour rule''), or more than 45 minutes in the 
case of dogs or cats being transported to or from a primary conveyance 
or terminal facility, do not override these additional temperature 
requirements. Consequently, a person responsible for the care of an 
animal that died from exposure to high temperatures might have been in 
compliance with the ``4-hour rule'' but would have been in violation of 
the other temperature and handling requirements in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3 
by not ensuring that the animals were cooled as necessary to provide 
for their well-being. In other words, the AWA regulations require that 
an individual responsible for a dog or cat's care must take measures to 
ensure the animal's well-being regardless of whether the temperature is 
85  deg.F or some temperature in excess of 85  deg.F. While some dogs 
and cats can easily withstand temperatures exceeding 85  deg.F for 
relatively long periods of time, other dogs and cats could be in danger 
at such temperatures for a relatively short period, especially with 
high humidity levels. Therefore, in this final rule, we are clarifying 
that the ``4-hour rule'' does not preclude the need to comply with the 
other temperature and handling requirements in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3. We 
are adding to Secs. 3.2(a), 3.3(a), 3.5(a), 3.15(e), 3.18(d), and 
3.19(a)(1) and (3) the following sentence: ``The preceding requirements 
are in addition to, not in place of, all other requirements pertaining 
to climatic conditions in parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.''
    In addition, because we agree with the many commenters who stated 
that humidity is an important factor in determining an animal's ability 
to withstand heat, we are also adding a new regulation regarding 
humidity levels that will apply to all animals covered by the AWA and 
making some minor changes to part 3 regarding humidity as it affects 
dogs and cats in the commercial pet trade. It is generally recognized 
that high temperatures with low humidity are less dangerous and more 
comfortable for humans and animals than high temperatures and high 
humidity. As stated above, individual animals can withstand high 
temperatures or high temperatures combined with high humidity for 
different lengths of time. Therefore, we are adding to the handling 
regulations in Sec. 2.131 new requirements that pertain to climatic 
conditions. The new regulations specify that, when climatic conditions, 
such as extreme temperatures and humidity levels, present a threat to 
an animal's health or well-being, appropriate measures must be taken to 
alleviate the impact of those conditions. Moreover, at no time may an 
animal be exposed to a combination of temperature, humidity, and time 
that would present a threat to the animal's health and well-being, 
taking into consideration such factors as the animal's health status, 
age, breed, and temperature acclimation.
    We believe these changes to the regulations are more realistic for 
the commercial pet and transportation industries to achieve than the 
proposed 90- deg.F limit and actually better convey our goals for a 
sound temperature policy for dogs, cats, and other animals covered by 
the AWA.

Other Comments on the Proposed Rule

    Several commenters stated that applying the proposed requirement to 
indoor and sheltered primary enclosures but not to outdoor primary 
enclosures is contradictory and discriminatory. One commenter agreed 
that the proposed temperature requirement should not apply to outdoor 
facilities but stated that the proposed rule should also not apply to 
animals in sheltered facilities with unobstructed access to an outdoor 
run. A couple of commenters expressed concern that the proposal implied 
that the USDA endorses outdoor facilities for dogs and cats over indoor 
facilities because one of the alternatives listed in the proposal for 
dog and cat dealers to gain compliance with the proposed requirement 
was for them to establish outdoor shelters.
    We did not mean to imply that we believe outdoor primary facilities 
for dogs and cats are preferable to indoor facilities. In regard to 
preventing stress from high temperatures, we continue to believe that 
outdoor shelters and runs provide dogs and cats with access to fresh 
air, air movement (breezes and winds), shade (required by the 
regulations), and other climatic and environmental factors that help to 
alleviate stress from high temperatures. Therefore, we believe that 
temperatures in excess of 85  deg.F are more comfortable outdoors than 
indoors, if auxiliary ventilation is not provided indoors. We do not 
recommend the use of outdoor facilities over indoor facilities for dogs 
and cats.
    Two commenters said that USDA should expand the proposed rule to 
deal with minimum temperatures as well as

[[Page 10496]]

maximum temperatures and should disallow animals in the circumstances 
covered by the proposed rule to ever be exposed to temperatures below 
50  deg.F. One commenter further stated that infant animals in the 
circumstances covered by the proposed rule should never be subjected to 
temperatures less than 65  deg.F.
    The current temperature requirements that apply to indoor housing 
facilities state, among other things, that ``[w]hen dogs or cats are 
present, the ambient temperature in the facility must not fall below 50 
 deg.F (10  deg.C) for dogs and cats not acclimated to lower 
temperatures, for those breeds that cannot tolerate lower temperatures 
without stress or discomfort (such as short-haired breeds), and for 
sick, aged, young, or infirm dogs and cats, except as approved by the 
attending veterinarian. Dry bedding, solid resting boards, or other 
methods of conserving body heat must be provided when temperatures are 
below 50  deg.F (10  deg.C). The ambient temperature must not fall 
below 45  deg.F (7.2  deg.C) for more than 4 consecutive hours when 
dogs or cats are present * * *.'' (Sec. 3.2(a)). These temperature 
requirements are the same as those for sheltered and mobile or 
traveling housing facilities. The temperature requirements for primary 
conveyances and terminal facilities state, among other things, that the 
ambient temperature may not fall below 45  deg.F (7.2  deg.C) for a 
period of more than 4 hours when dogs or cats are present. The 
temperature requirements regarding transporting dogs or cats to or from 
terminal facilities and primary conveyances state, among other things, 
that the ambient temperature must not fall below 45  deg.F (7.2  deg.C) 
for a period of more than 45 minutes, unless the animal is accompanied 
by a certificate of acclimation to lower temperatures as provided in 
Sec. 3.13(e).
    The sentence described previously that is being added through this 
final rule to several sections in 9 CFR part 3 to clarify that the ``4-
hour rule'' does not preempt the other temperature and handling 
requirements also pertains to minimum temperatures. We believe that the 
current temperature requirements regarding specific minimum temperature 
levels, in conjunction with the current AWA regulations that pertain to 
temperature in general and the changes resulting from this final rule, 
are sufficient to protect dogs and cats in the circumstances covered by 
the proposal from adverse exposure to cold temperatures.
    One commenter questioned whether there is evidence that airlines 
routinely have monitored or will monitor the temperatures in cargo 
holds and how APHIS would monitor the temperature of cargo holds during 
flight. Another commenter stated that airlines should be required to 
ascertain current temperatures at all transfer points and destinations 
for animals being transported and not permit shipment if the 
temperatures are outside the requirements.
    For the airlines or any other regulated entity to ensure compliance 
with the AWA temperature requirements for dogs and cats, monitoring the 
animals they are transporting is more important than taking temperature 
readings. As such, the current requirements pertaining to air 
transportation of dogs and cats state, among other things, that 
``[d]uring air transportation of dogs or cats, it is the responsibility 
of the carrier to observe the dogs or cats as frequently as 
circumstances allow, but not less than once every 4 hours if the animal 
cargo area is accessible during flight. If the animal cargo area is not 
accessible during flight, the carrier must observe the dogs or cats 
whenever they are loaded and unloaded and whenever the animal cargo 
space is otherwise accessible to make sure they have sufficient air for 
normal breathing, that the animal cargo area meets the heating and 
cooling requirements of Sec. 3.15(d), and that all other applicable 
standards of this subpart are being complied with * * *.'' (9 CFR 
3.17(b)).
    We believe that these current requirements, in conjunction with the 
AWA regulations discussed previously that pertain to temperature in 
general, as well as the new requirement being added to 9 CFR part 2 
through this final rule, are sufficient to ensure the health and well-
being of animals during air transport. In regard to requiring the 
airlines to ascertain temperatures at transfer points and refusing to 
transport animals if the temperatures are outside the appropriate 
range, the airlines can and do refuse to ship animals if there is any 
question as to whether an individual animal could be transported 
safely. However, we do not agree that obtaining temperatures at 
transfer points prior to departure is necessary. The outside 
temperature at an airport is irrelevant if efforts are made to keep the 
animals sufficiently heated or cooled to ensure their well-being while 
in the cargo hold of the airplane on the tarmac and while the animals 
are being transported to or from the airplane or terminal facility.
    One commenter stated in regard to Sec. 3.15(d) that, ``if it is 
required that the passenger cabin of an airplane be pressurized at 
8,000 feet and less, then the cargo hold in which animals are 
transported must also be pressurized.'' We have made no change in 
response to this comment because aircraft cargo holds that contain 
animals are pressurized the same as passenger cabins.
    One commenter suggested that the proposed rule could benefit from a 
definition of the term ``terminal facilities'' in 9 CFR, part 1. We 
believe that this term is self-explanatory, and, consequently, have 
made no change to the regulations in response to this comment.
    One commenter stated that USDA should mandate that airlines (1) 
advise passengers who have lost an animal on a flight that they should 
file a complaint with USDA, and (2) advise USDA themselves of such 
incidents. The commenter maintained that the data obtained from such 
reporting would better enable USDA to learn precisely which aircraft 
and which cargo holds present the greatest risks to animals. Another 
commenter further stated that carriers and intermediate handlers should 
be required to notify APHIS within 24 hours of the death of an animal 
being transported and should be required to maintain an annual report 
on the transportation of companion animals to include (1) the total 
number of animals shipped, and (2) the total number of injuries, 
fatalities, and losses. The commenter had additional recommendations 
regarding establishing requirements under the AWA intended to ensure 
the safety of animals in air transit.
    We believe that the statistics the commenters recommended we obtain 
could be informative but question the true value of having such data. 
Specifically, we question whether having it would necessarily improve 
our enforcement of the AWA and whether any benefit gained from such 
data would be worth the paperwork burden that would be placed on the 
regulated industry and the information collection burden that would be 
placed upon our agency. However, we are considering these suggestions 
as well as the other recommendations made by the commenter pertaining 
to air transport of animals. In addition, we are engaged in a public 
information campaign regarding the APHIS Animal Care program, and one 
of the areas of emphasis is USDA's role in regulating the air transport 
of animals. We have developed a brochure, ``Traveling With Your Pet,'' 
that is being distributed to, among others, travel agencies, 
veterinarians, and any member of the public who requests it. Animal 
Care has also established a home page on the

[[Page 10497]]

World Wide Web that includes information on safe pet travel.
    A few commenters indicated that we should extend the proposed 
regulation to cover dogs and cats housed by humane societies, pounds, 
and individual pet owners. While we agree that all dogs and cats should 
be treated in a humane manner, the AWA does not authorize us to 
promulgate standards for the care of animals by humane societies, 
pounds, or individual pet owners, unless they are acting as dealers or 
exhibitors.
    Two commenters made comments and recommendations regarding AWA 
enforcement, the AWA regulations pertaining to veterinary care provided 
to regulated animals, and the breeding frequency for female animals in 
the commercial pet trade. Although these comments are outside the scope 
of the proposed regulation, we are taking them into consideration. If 
we decide to make any changes to the AWA regulations in response to 
these comments, we will publish a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register.
    One commenter expressed concerns about the format of the three 
public meetings APHIS held in 1996 to gather information on the 
regulations pertaining to the care of dogs and cats in the commercial 
pet trade. Specifically, the commenter stated, ``If APHIS is going to 
use the workshop format to justify specific rulemaking, rather than 
merely as a mechanism for gather[ing] opinions, it must develop a 
mechanism to assure that reasonable standards of accountability are 
imposed on workshop participants, so that workshop input can be 
properly evaluated and not be overly influenced by aggressive and 
excessively vocal interest groups.'' The commenter was particularly 
concerned that participants who claimed there have been numerous 
incidents of injury and death of dogs and cats during air transport did 
not produce supporting evidence, ``and it was clear that the majority 
of participants in the air transport session did not concur with these 
allegations.''
    Our agency held the three public meetings in 1996 to gather 
information from interested and affected parties. We believe the 
workshop format was useful for eliciting information. We have 
considered and continue to consider the wide range of opinions 
expressed at those meetings, and further rulemaking may result. We did 
not use the input obtained from the public meetings to ``justify'' our 
proposed rule; as stated previously, the proposed rule was based on 
information gathered at the meetings as well as on our own experience 
in AWA enforcement.
    Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule 
and in this document, we are adopting the provisions discussed in this 
document as a final rule.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 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.
    This document makes final part of a proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register on July 2, 1996 (61 FR 34386-34389, Docket No. 95-078-
1). The proposed rule would have amended the regulations under the 
Animal Welfare Act by removing the option for facilities to use 
tethering as a means of primary enclosure for dogs and revising the 
temperature requirements for indoor, sheltered, and mobile and 
traveling housing facilities, for primary conveyances used in 
transportation, and for the animal holding areas of terminal facilities 
to require that the ambient temperature must never exceed 90  deg.F 
(32.2  deg.C) when dogs or cats are present. As part of the proposed 
rule document, we performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
in which we invited comments concerning potential economic effects of 
the proposed rule.
    This document pertains only to the part of the proposed rule 
concerning the temperature requirements. We received several comments 
from members of the potentially affected industries concerning the 
likely economic effects of the proposed temperature requirements and 
one comment from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) that 
stated the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis fell short of what 
is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The SBA further stated 
that APHIS should better indicate the scope of the problem before 
issuing a final rule and consider other alternatives than just the rule 
as proposed or no change to the regulations.
    In fiscal year 1995, 10,108 facilities were licensed or registered 
under the AWA. Of that number, 4,325 were licensed dealers, 2,304 were 
licensed exhibitors, and 3,479 were registrants. The dealers are 
subdivided into two classes. Class A dealers (3,056) breed animals, and 
Class B dealers (1,269) serve as animal brokers. The registrants 
comprise research facilities (2,688), carriers and intermediate 
handlers (756), and exhibitors (35).
    It is not known how many of the licensees and registrants are 
considered small entities under SBA standards, since information as to 
their size (in terms of gross receipts or number of employees) is not 
available. However, it is reasonable to assume that most are small, 
based on composite data for providers of the same and similar services 
in the United States. In 1992, the per-firm average gross receipts for 
all 6,804 firms in SIC 0752 (which includes breeders) was $115,290, 
well below the SBA's small-entity threshold of $5.0 million. Similarly, 
the 1992 per-establishment average employment for all 3,826 U.S. 
establishments in SIC 8731 (which includes research facilities) was 29, 
well below the SBA's small-entity threshold of 500 employees.
    Animal dealers commented on both the potential direct and indirect 
economic effects of the proposed rule on their businesses. Several 
commenters stated that the estimated cost of compliance in the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was too low and that implementing the 
proposal would be much more burdensome and costly than the analysis 
showed. Two research firms commented that, in most parts of the United 
States, air conditioning is the only means of ensuring that the 
temperature in an enclosed building never rises above 90  deg.F. One 
firm then estimated that installation of air conditioning at the firm's 
research facility would cost $350,000, additional annual utility costs 
would be $37,340, and an additional $400,000 would be required for a 
generator to prevent cessation of air conditioning during a power 
outage. The other research firm stated that the cost of installing and 
operating air conditioning ``would jeopardize our ability to operate 
profitably and may result in a substantial increase in cost to our 
pharmaceutical clients.'' One dealer indicated that the estimated cost 
for additional electricity needed for air conditioning was too low, and 
another dealer questioned whether the cost of a standby generating 
system is within an affordable price range for a small kennel.
    Some animal dealers expressed concern that the airlines might stop 
transporting animals instead of trying to comply with additional USDA 
animal care and handling requirements. The commenters were especially 
concerned that many small dealers cannot afford the costs of 
transporting their animals by surface transportation. They further 
stated that, if the airlines end air transport of animals, then small 
dealers would be put out of business and the wholesale pet industry 
would either become obsolete or the domain of a few large dealers. One 
commenter stated

[[Page 10498]]

that small dealers provide diversity in the commercial pet business.
    A commenter representing the airline industry expressed similar 
concerns. The commenter stated that, if the proposed rule was 
finalized, it would ``have a destructive and costly effect on 
individual pet owners, owners of assistance dogs, the pet trade, 
breeders of dogs and cats, and the dog and cat show competition 
industry'' because ``airlines simply will not be able to carry pet 
animals from a large number of airport cities for large portions of 
each year.''
    We recognize and agree with many of the concerns just described. 
However, we believe that all of these concerns are relevant to the 
proposed rule only. The final rule should not cause economic hardship 
for the regulated industries because it serves to clarify the current 
regulations and adds no new requirements that would add a financial 
burden. The final rule clarifies that the standards in subpart A of 9 
CFR part 3 that state that the ambient temperature must not fall below 
45  deg.F or rise above 85  deg.F for more than 4 consecutive hours 
when dogs or cats are present do not override the other requirements 
pertaining to climatic conditions and handling in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3. 
In addition, the final rule adds a new requirement to 9 CFR part 2 that 
applies to climatic conditions for all animals covered by the AWA. 
Under the new rule, when climatic conditions, such as extreme 
temperatures and humidity levels, present a threat to an animal's 
health or well-being, appropriate measures must be taken to alleviate 
the impact of those conditions. Moreover, at no time may an animal be 
exposed to a combination of temperature, humidity, and time that would 
present a threat to the animal's health and well-being, taking into 
consideration such factors as the animal's health status, age, breed, 
and temperature acclimation. Because the AWA regulations have always 
required regulated parties to take appropriate measures to ensure the 
health and well-being of their animals, these requirements basically 
serve to clarify existing requirements.
    In regard to the comment letter from the SBA, APHIS Animal Care 
officials agreed that more specific information was needed regarding 
the scope of the problem, so APHIS headquarters surveyed the Animal 
Care field staff on the issue of temperature requirements for dogs and 
cats. The respondents included 38 animal care inspectors and 1 
supervisory animal care specialist. The survey responses indicate that, 
in the facilities inspected by the respondents in the past 5 years, 
2,516 dogs and cats have been severely affected, and 108 dogs and cats 
have died, as the result of exposure to excessive temperatures. In 
regard to the SBA's comment that other viable alternatives than just 
the rule as proposed or no change to the regulations need to be 
considered, APHIS is taking an entirely different approach to the 
proposal in the final rule.
    There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated 
with this rule.

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. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. 
This rule would not preempt any State or 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 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

9 CFR Part 2

    Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Research.

9 CFR Part 3

    Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research, Transportation.

    Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 2 and 3 are amended as follows:

PART 2--REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(g).

    2. In Sec. 2.131, a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 2.131  Handling of animals.

* * * * *
    (d) When climatic conditions present a threat to an animal's health 
or well-being, appropriate measures must be taken to alleviate the 
impact of those conditions. An animal may never be subjected to any 
combination of temperature, humidity, and time that is detrimental to 
the animal's health or well-being, taking into consideration such 
factors as the animal's age, species, breed, overall health status, and 
acclimation.

PART 3--STANDARDS

    3. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

    4. In Sec. 3.2, paragraph (a) is amended as follows:
    a. In the first sentence, by adding the words ``or humidity'' after 
the word ``temperature''.
    b. At the end of the paragraph, by adding a new sentence to read as 
set forth below.


Sec. 3.2  Indoor housing facilities.

    (a) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 3.3, paragraph (a) is amended as follows:
    a. In the first sentence, by adding the words ``or humidity'' after 
the word ``temperature''.
    b. At the end of the paragraph, by adding a new sentence to read as 
set forth below.


Sec. 3.3  Sheltered housing facilities.

    (a) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 3.5, paragraph (a) is amended as follows:
    a. In the first sentence, by adding the words ``or humidity'' after 
the word ``temperature''.
    b. At the end of the paragraph, by adding a new sentence to read as 
set forth below.


Sec. 3.5  Mobile or traveling housing facilities.

    (a) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    7. Section 3.15 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (d), the first sentence, by adding the words ``and 
humidity'' after the word ``temperature''.

[[Page 10499]]

    b. In paragraph (e), at the end of the paragraph by adding a new 
sentence to read as set forth below.


Sec. 3.15  Primary conveyances (motor vehicle, rail, air, and marine).

* * * * *
    (e) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 3.18, paragraph (d) is amended by adding at the end of 
the paragraph a new sentence to read as follows:


Sec. 3.18  Terminal facilities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec. 3.19, paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) are amended by adding at 
the end of both paragraphs a new sentence to read as follows:


Sec. 3.19  Handling.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (3) * * * The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in 
place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in 
parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 1998.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 98-5538 Filed 3-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P